AI already writes faster than many professionals, making it a powerful ally in administrative and legal textsthus lightening the most tedious workload for humans. The problem is that it is an efficient tool, but not infallibleso supervision of its results is necessary. That is, it saves you only part of the work, but maintains the obligation to monitor the results.
That is just what the TSXG has put on the table in one case which affects a Galician lawyer, against whom the Galician High Court has opened a case for procedural bad faith after detecting a written appeal with AI in which he had invented 24 legal quotes to argue it.
The resource under suspicion. The Superior Court of Xustiza of Galicia maintains that the document presented “multiple spurious citations, non-existent resolutions, others that have nothing to do with what was discussed, or directly invented.” According to the Galician court, the appeal accumulated a series of errors that cannot be attributed to human error, but rather respond “to a notable lack of diligence in professional performance.”
The resolution adds that the text followed a “curious structure in the way it was written”, something that the court relates to the use of free generative AI. Although, above all, the TSXG disgraces the lawyer for the lack of subsequent verification to stop the “constant ‘hallucinations'” of the system.
Lack of review. As the Galician court’s brief highlights, the procedural bad faith of which the lawyer is accused does not lead to a malicious use of deception, but rather “evidence conduct revealing obvious negligence on the part of someone who, considered an expert in procedural rules and respectful of the deontological principles of his profession, entrusted his work – to what we believe -, without further review, to what the algorithm proposed, omitting the diligence of verifying the existence of what he cited, trusting perhaps in which the abundance of references would not only go unnoticed by this Court, but would also give authority to its assertions.”
That is, it is a warning to navigators that AI can speed up writing, but it does not know if a sentence exists or if a decontextualized quote serves to support a legal argument. That process of screening and supervision is still human, and that role of supervising results will be a key piece in the future of the practice of law.
Engineers have already changed. The process of changing roles that the legal profession will undergo in the very near future (in fact, as we see, it has already begun) with the arrival of AI is not something new. Software engineers and programmers were the first to experience it.
AI is gaining prominence when writing the code of large technology companies like googleMicrosoft and even Anthropic already generates much of its AI with its AI But, at the same time, the engineer has not disappeared, but has gone from having a role as a producer to one of a supervisor who analyzes the results provided by the AI.
By that same reasonthe technological have reduced the hiring of junior personnel, who until now were dedicated to those more tedious tasks, and have accelerated the hiring of seniors with the most trained eye for detect errors and inconsistencies in the code.
From legal advisor to legal supervisor. The comparison between what is already evident in big technology companies and what is coming in law firms is quite evident. AI is not going to end the figure of the lawyer, but it will generate a shift in work roles towards the supervision of legal texts. In fact, as how I collected Reuterssome law firms are already requiring their junior associates to know how to use and supervise AI.
We are only facing one of the cases derived from the improper use of AI in legal texts that have been occurring in recent months. According what was published by Iberley In February, the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands established a financial penalty for a lawyer who had used AI to generate an appeal that contained a total of 48 jurisprudential citations. invented by an AI.
Regulate the use of AI for judges. In reality, the impact of AI in the legal field goes beyond its use in drafting routine legal resources and briefs. In Spain, judges have already been sanctioned for using ChatGPT in drafting something as compromised as a sentence. In April 2026, the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) opened a file to a magistrate for having “evaded his jurisdictional functions” by leaving the drafting of a sentence in the hands of an AI.
As a result of this case and other controversies, the General Council of the Judiciary has had to approve a “guide” aimed at the use of AI in the judicial career, so that it is established how this tool should be used so as not to incur a neglect of one’s legal responsibilities. Who knows if one of those new professions to be created in the future it will be that of supervisor of sentences.
In Xataka | “Unpresentable” and meaningless: the court declares a dismissal unfair due to a letter generated with an AI
Image | Unsplash (Romain Dancre and Solen Feyissa)
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings