Czech Constitutional Court fines a lawyer 25,000 CZK for a complaint built on AI-hallucinated case law

The problem

A Prague lawyer, Mgr. Pavol Kehl, filed a constitutional complaint (ústavní stížnost) with the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic on behalf of a client contesting a temporary-residence permit matter (source). The complaint argued from 12 decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (source).

On careful review, the Court found the argument rested on authorities that were not real: a substantial part of the cited decisions do not exist at all, a further part are grossly misinterpreted, and only a few have any real bearing on the case (source).

What was built

The complaint was drafted with generative AI. The Court did not merely find bad citations; it identified textual hallmarks of AI authorship, anglicisms, fragmentary keyword-style sentences, inconsistent citation formatting, and a failure to distinguish a nález from a usnesení, and drew the inference that the filing had been generated by “some AI model” whose cited decisions the lawyer then never checked (source). The order names no specific product (source).

The Court held that the tool is beside the point and the responsibility is not: lawyers, as professionals trained in law, take full responsibility for their filings and therefore answer for hallucinated AI argumentation where AI was used to produce them (source).

The outcome

The Court imposed a procedural fine of 25,000 CZK on the lawyer (source). The fine was set under section 61(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, which permits a procedural fine of up to 100,000 CZK where a party grossly obstructs proceedings (source); the Court imposed one quarter of that range because it was a first offense (source).

Reporting placed the order as the first of its kind in the Czech Republic: Info.cz framed it as likely the first time such a fine had been imposed (source), and the ČTK wire noted that no other penalty for “hallucinating” AI could be found in the Constitutional Court’s own database (source). A disciplinary referral to the Czech Bar was reported as in play (source).

What this story does not claim: no AI product is named; the 100,000 CZK figure is the statutory ceiling, not the fine; the 25,000 CZK is a procedural obstruction fine under section 61, not a Bar disciplinary sanction; and the AI use is the Court’s stated presumption from the text, not an admission recorded in this order.

How this was verified

Method: independent audit of the public record only. No contact was made with the lawyer, the Court, or any party; TIN never seeks confirmation from the subject of a story.

The order I.ÚS 3004/25 (1 December 2025, 1st Senate) is a published decision of the Constitutional Court and is retrievable from the Court’s public NALUS database by case number. Every figure on this page, the 25,000 CZK fine, the 100,000 CZK statutory ceiling, and the 12 cited decisions, was re-fetched on 2026-08-14 and independently restated by the ČTK national wire (carried by ČT24 and České noviny), by public broadcaster iROZHLAS, and by two commercially independent newsrooms (Lupa.cz and Info.cz), with an EU-level legal-technology body (IRPA) summarising the statutory basis. The fine amount, the statutory ceiling, the decision count and the section 61(1) basis were re-checked live again on 2026-08-19 and matched. The named lawyer is on the public record and could refute the account; none of the sources has been retracted or corrected as of the re-fetch date.

Verification date: 2026-08-14.

Related case files

This is the Czech entry in a growing cross-border record of courts sanctioning lawyers for AI-fabricated authority, and it reads best alongside the same pattern in other systems.

Noland v. Land of the Free is the closest analogue: like the Czech order, it is framed as a first-of-its-kind ruling in its jurisdiction (a published California appellate opinion) turning on the same failure, a lawyer who never verified AI-generated citations.

Mazaheri v. Law Society of Ontario shows the same conduct met with a monetary consequence in a common-law regulator setting, where the named AI tool (Grok) is on the record rather than presumed from the text, a useful contrast with the unnamed model here.

Murray v. Victoria (FCA 731) is the Australian counterpart, where AI-fabricated citations drew indemnity costs, and like this file it keeps the responsibility on the filing lawyer regardless of the tool used.

---

Sources

Tier 1 = primary (the Court’s own order) and the national wire and public broadcaster restating it firsthand; Tier 2 = independent Czech newsrooms and an EU legal-tech summary. Figures checked live 2026-08-19 (fine, statutory ceiling, decision count, section 61(1) basis) against sources 1, 2 and 8, and previously re-fetched 2026-08-14 across the set.

1. Ústavní soud České republiky, usnesení I.ÚS 3004/25, 2025-12-01 (Tier 1, primary; the Court’s own order, public via the NALUS database, searchable by case number). https://nalus.usoud.cz/
2. ČTK / České noviny, “Umělá inteligence halucinovala o rozsudcích, advokát za to dostal pokutu od ÚS,” 2025-12 (Tier 1, national wire restating the order firsthand; carries the 25,000 CZK fine and 12-decision count). https://www.ceskenoviny.cz/zpravy/umela-inteligence-halucinovala-o-rozsudcich-advokat-za-to-dostal-pokutu-od-us/2755706
3. Česká televize / ČT24, “AI si vymyslela rozsudky. Advokát ji nezkontroloval, dostal tak pokutu od ÚS,” 2025-12 (Tier 1, public broadcaster). https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/clanek/domaci/advokat-si-pomohl-ai-ta-citovala-neexistujici-rozsudky-muz-dostal-pokutu-od-us-367883
4. iROZHLAS (Český rozhlas), “Ústavní stížnost psala za advokáta umělá inteligence,” 2025-12-10 (Tier 1, public broadcaster; carries the disciplinary-referral note). https://www.irozhlas.cz/zpravy-domov/ustavni-stiznost-psala-za-advokata-umela-inteligence-vymyslela-si-judikaturu-ve_2512101440_pik
5. Lupa.cz, “Advokát naletěl umělé inteligenci, Ústavní soud mu dal pokutu,” 2025-12 (Tier 2, independent newsroom; carries the first-offense quarter-of-range detail). https://www.lupa.cz/aktuality/advokat-naletel-umele-inteligenci-ustavni-soud-mu-dal-pokutu/
6. Info.cz, “Advokát věřil AI a tvrdě narazil. Ústavní soud mu dal pokutu za vymyšlenou judikaturu,” 2025-12 (Tier 2, independent newsroom; frames it as likely the first such fine). https://www.info.cz/zpravodajstvi-a-komentare/ustavni-soud-pokuta-advokat-umela-inteligence-ai
7. Česká justice, “Ústavní soud: Nesmyslně nás zatěžujete. Stížnost za advokáta psala AI,” 2025-12 (Tier 2, independent legal newsroom; carries the responsibility holding). https://www.ceska-justice.cz/2025/12/ustavni-soud-nesmyslne-nas-zatezujete-advokat-ai/
8. IRPA, “The Czech Constitutional Court imposed a fine on a lawyer for a poor-quality petition generated by AI” (Tier 2, EU legal-tech summary; states the section 61(1) statutory basis and the 100,000 CZK ceiling). https://www.irpa.eu/the-czech-constitutional-court-imposed-a-fine-on-a-lawyer-for-a-poor-quality-petition-generated-by-ai/