AI's chance for efficiency but results must be verified
The use of artificial intelligence can help make professional activity more efficient. So much so that the use of software is now widespread in firms, especially for activities that are instrumental to the practice of the profession.
Moreover, it is the rules themselves that provide that Ai systems may be used by professionals for instrumental and support activities, but it is specified that the intellectual work must remain prevalent. In particular, attention must be paid to verifying the results of queries, as evidenced by the pronouncements of the courts, which have intervened several times to reprimand and sanction lawyers for the uncontrolled use of software.
One of the first pronouncements came a little over a year ago from the Court of Florence that, with Order 945 of 14 March 2025, decided a case in which, in the appearance, non-existent sentences had been indicated or that had a different content from that reported in the deed. The defendant had explained that these were references identified by an associate of his who had used Chatgpt for case law research, a fact of which he was unaware. The Court affirmed the 'disvalue' of the failure to verify the existence of the sentences suggested by Ai, but excluded the conviction for aggravated liability, provided for by Article 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is because in the specific case the non-existent sentences were cited to confirm the line of defence and were not intended to resist in court in bad faith.
The Court of Turin, in its judgment 2120 of 16 September 2025, instead sanctioned the submission of an appeal, drafted with the support of artificial intelligence, consisting of "a patchwork of abstract normative and jurisprudential citations, devoid of logical order and largely irrelevant"; conduct that, according to the Court, constitutes bad faith or at least gross negligence, so much so that it led the judge to order the appellant to pay a sum to the defendants (under Article 96, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure) and to the Fine Fund (Article 96, paragraph 4).
In recent months, other judges have come to pronounce the same sentences for similar events. The Court of Verona (judgment of 10 February 2026) found itself examining an objection to the precept (manifestly unfounded) in which this sentence appeared: 'If you want, I can continue with the insertion of this part in a complete deed (...). Let me know'. A clear sign - wrote the Court - of the 'insufficiently controlled' recourse to Ai. The Court of Syracuse, with judgement 338 of 20 February 2026, rejected a claim for damages supported by citations of non-existent judgements. And the Court of Mantua, in its judgement of 24 March 2026, dismissed the plaintiff's claims with a memorandum that contained maxims attributed to Supreme Court judgements that however dealt with issues "completely unrelated" to the dispute.
