Raad van Discipline in het ressort 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands bar disciplinary tribunal), on the complaint of the deken of the Orde van Advocaten, Limburg
Beslissing in zaak 26-379/DB/LI/D, ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93
Sanctioned · 27 July 2026
What was fabricated
In the first file, all 8 case-law citations in the defence pleading were wrong: 1 ECLI number did not exist at all, and the other 7 ECLI numbers belonged to entirely unrelated decisions — the kantonrechter noted these included a divorce order and a criminal matter. The same pattern recurred in a second, separate tenancy file, where the pleading again contained references to partly non-existent case law. The pleading also misstated art. 7:274(1)(c) of the Dutch Civil Code and invented a 15-page limit in the Landelijke Procesrichtlijnen Civiel. The advocate said she had treated AI tools as search engines; the only tool she could name was LegalPA, which she has since cancelled.
What happened as a result
Decision of 27 July 2026. Reprimand (berisping) for breach of the core values of expertise (deskundigheid) and integrity under art. 10a Advocatenwet and of conduct rule 8, plus €1,250 in costs (€750 to the Netherlands Bar, €500 to the State). The kantonrechter had separately found a breach of art. 21 Rv but declined to strike the whole defence as disproportionate to the client. The confidentiality limb of the deken's complaint was dismissed as unproven. Mitigation: no prior discipline, and AI literacy was not yet common at the time of drafting (July 2025).
Sources
- https://tuchtrecht.overheid.nl/ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93
- https://repository.overheid.nl/frbr/tuchtrecht/2026/ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93/1/pdf/ECLI_NL_TADRSHE_2026_93.pdf
- https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2713/ECLI_NL_TADRSHE_2026_93.pdf
Every incident is confirmed against at least one reputable source (mainstream news, legal/official, or the organisation itself). Nothing unverifiable is listed. Accuracy is non-negotiable — Ukweli is a truth product.