The Case of AI Hallucinations in the Court of Cassation

1. The fact

   According to reports by Il Sole 24 Ore, Sistema Penale, and Altalex, a lawyer filed an appeal before the Sixth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation including extensive excerpts of reasoning and headnotes referring to rulings that were never delivered. During the examination of the filing, the judges verified that the case numbers and publication years provided were non-existent.

   The lawyer admitted to using generative AI software to draft the document, relying on the output produced by the system without performing any precise verification. The proceedings before the Court of Cassation concluded with a final ruling declaring the appeal inadmissible and ordering the transmission of the documents to the Bar Council for disciplinary evaluation.

2. 

   The rules in play

   The central legal provisions are Art. 606 c.p.p., which establishes the grounds for appeal to the Court of Cassation, and Art. 591 c.p.p., which mandates inadmissibility in the case of a lack of specificity. At the constitutional level, Art. 111 on due process is relevant, requiring compliance with the principles of fairness and procedural loyalty.

   Regarding professional conduct, the Code of Conduct for Lawyers invokes Art. 12 (duty of diligence) and Art. 50 (duty of truthfulness), which mandate that lawyers verify the accuracy of all data and legal citations included in procedural filings.

3. What case law says

   High court case law has clarified that an error induced by a technological tool cannot be equated to a material error, such as a simple typo. The court established that introducing non-existent precedents violates the principle of self-sufficiency of the appeal and compromises the judicial function.

   The so-called Human-in-the-loop principle has thus been reaffirmed: final responsibility for the document's content rests solely with the professional who signs it, who retains the non-delegable duty to filter and validate every algorithmic output.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Never incorporate AI-generated outputs without thorough cross-referencing against official legal databases.
   2. Thoroughly document the human review process performed on documents drafted with technological assistance.
   3. Consider including indemnity clauses in licensing agreements with software providers, keeping in mind that they cannot be asserted in criminal or disciplinary proceedings.
   4. Maintain ongoing professional development on AI limitations, paying specific attention to AI hallucinations and output patterns.

References: Art. 606 c.p.p.Art. 591 c.p.p.Art. 111 CostituzioneArt. 12 Codice Deontologico ForenseArt. 50 Codice Deontologico Forense

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 11 June 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction