{"id":2135,"date":"2026-05-12T09:00:21","date_gmt":"2026-05-12T12:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/?p=2135"},"modified":"2026-05-12T11:06:48","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T14:06:48","slug":"reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/","title":{"rendered":"Reflections on the Advancement of AI Use in Contentious Proceedings: Benefits and Risks of Adopting Generative AI by Courts and Lawyers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dr. Cezar Augusto Najjarian [1]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Dr. Guilherme Oliveira da Silva [2]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. INTRODUCTION <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    On 04\/10\/2026, a decision was rendered granting an injunction suspending the import tax on crude oil based on a provision of a provisional measure that does not exist[3]. In mid-2025, Justice Cristiano Zanin denied a Constitutional Complaint that cited non-existent precedents, attributed incorrect content to a Binding Precedent, and, according to the Justice, attempted to mislead the Supreme Court[4]. Lawyers replace the solemn act of oral arguments with voice recordings[5], magistrates make gross errors[6] and use invented precedents to render decisions[7]. All these cases occurred due to the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI).<\/p>\n

    The current scenario of AI use in litigation represents a great risk, but, even so, the greatest current risk seems to be not using these technologies. The exponential productivity gain and the improvement in the quality of research and drafting are significant and have the power to differentiate lawyers from competitors and assist judges in efficiency and precision.<\/p>\n

    The central point is that the use of generative AI systems (GenAI) must, necessarily, be accompanied by human review. AI should be a support, but not a substitute. Human intervention, as highlighted by Cl\u00e1udio Luiz Bueno de Godoy, must occur in the review and explanation of automated decisions[8].<\/p>\n

    According to the National Council of Justice, the Judiciary begins 2026 with the lowest backlog of pending cases in six years[9], and research shows that 76% of lawyers use AI for drafting procedural documents[10]. With the evident existing benefits, it is necessary to carry out a balancing exercise with the risks involved, especially when there is a lack of instruction, governance, and human review.<\/p>\n

    Thus, this article aims, without any intention of exhausting existing doctrine, to explore the use of AI in the national litigation process. First, the advancement of AI in the Brazilian Judiciary will be analyzed \u2013 both regarding its use and the regulations involved in the development of these technologies. After, the dilemmas involved in its use in the legal profession will be explored, pointing out the benefits and risks of using these technologies. Finally, basic governance measures on the ethical use of AI will be indicated.<\/p>\n

    \n

    2. THE ADVANCEMENT OF AI IN THE BRAZILIAN JUDICIARY<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Several Courts of the Brazilian Judiciary are already using AI technologies, especially applications developed and trained with internal databases, to support the drafting of decisions, research, and document analysis.<\/p>\n

    In the Superior Court of Justice, the launch of STJ Logos stands out, developed internally and implemented in February 2025. According to the Superior Court itself,<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cThe solution assists in document analysis and the drafting of drafts, reducing repetitive tasks. Between February and June 2025, thousands of documents were produced with the support of the system. Internal research indicated an increase in productivity in the offices that began to use STJ Logos more broadly.<\/em><\/p>\n

    The tool operates in a controlled environment, with safeguards aimed at the ethical and responsible use of technology. More than 600 public servants participated in training sessions on the practical application and impacts of AI in the Justice System. In partnership with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco), the court promoted a workshop on artificial intelligence and the Democratic Rule of Law.\u201d[11]<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    The Supreme Federal Court has also been expanding the use of artificial intelligence in support of jurisdictional activity[12]. Since 2018, the Supreme Court has been demonstrating leadership, especially with the creation of the \u201cVictor\u201d platform, specifically to support the screening of extraordinary appeals and the identification of cases linked to themes of general relevance. At the end of 2024, the \u201cMARIA\u201d tool was launched[13], which has been responsible for greater agility in the STF.<\/p>\n

    In addition to the STJ and STF, several other courts use AI solutions. In 2022, the CNJ reported that 53 courts were developing AI solutions, compared to 32 bodies in the previous survey. The survey released in 2024, referring to the 2023 mapping, pointed to 140 AI projects identified in 94 bodies of the Judiciary and recorded a 17% increase in the number of courts with an AI project, reaching 62 bodies, compared to 53 in 2022. In the most recent survey regarding 2024, the CNJ began to record 178 AI initiatives, the result of the sum of 98 new projects with 80 previous projects that remained in production[14].<\/p>\n

    This growing use in the Judiciary certainly reveals challenges, including in the regulatory sphere. The starting point for the use of AI remains CNJ Resolution No. 332\/2020, which established guidelines for ethics, transparency, and governance for the production and use of artificial intelligence in the Judiciary. Subsequently, the CNJ expanded this regime with CNJ Resolution No. 615\/2025, which began to regulate in a more detailed manner the development, governance, auditing, monitoring, and responsible use of AI solutions in the judicial sphere.<\/p>\n

    The new resolution expressly links the adoption of AI tools to the protection of fundamental rights, auditability, contestability, explainability, information security, and effective human supervision[15]. It also prohibits solutions that do not allow for human review and determines that projects be reported to the CNJ and registered in Sinapses, which must maintain a catalog of AI systems used in the Judiciary, as indicated by art. 10, I, of the Resolution:<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201cArt. 10. The Judiciary is prohibited, as they entail excessive risk to information security, the fundamental rights of citizens, or the independence of magistrates, from developing and using solutions: I \u2013 that do not allow for human review of the results proposed throughout their training, development, and use cycle, or that generate absolute user dependence on the proposed result, without the possibility of alteration or review\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    This regulation reveals that, in Brazil, the institutional discussion is not centered on knowing if AI can be used by the courts, but how it should be used. The same must be observed for lawyers acting in the litigation process, especially due to the manifest benefits of the use of these technologies.<\/p>\n

    \n

    3. BENEFITS OF THE USE OF AI BY LAWYERS<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The benefits of artificial intelligence for litigation practice are equally real and measurable, combined with the extensive use of these tools by various lawyers and across multiple areas. The Report on the Impact of AI in Law[16] documents a transformation in cost that no longer allows for reversal.<\/p>\n

    The main reported use is the drafting of procedural documents, where 76% of lawyers who use artificial intelligence employ it to draft various legal documents, including initials, defenses, appeals, and replies.<\/p>\n

    Next, 59% use it for case law research, automating the search for precedents, consolidated theses, and relevant decisions, and 58% for drafting legal opinions and memorandums. Finally, in fourth place, with 56%, they use it in the analysis and review of contracts.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, the report presents expressive results in these uses of AI, where 91% of professionals report an improvement in the technical quality of the final work and 84% state that their expectations were met or exceeded. Time-saving is the most cited benefit, for which 70% expect significant acceleration in legal research and analysis.<\/p>\n

    In addition to individual productivity, AI allows for better management of repetitive demands (an endemic problem in mass litigation practice). The ability to process large volumes of documents, identify argumentative patterns, and generate standardized drafts with automatic adaptations frees the lawyer for what cannot be delegated to the machine.<\/p>\n

    Moreover, the democratization of access is another positive effect. OAB-SP, through a partnership with JusBrasil, provided access to the AI platform in nearly 600 lawyers’ rooms in the State of S\u00e3o Paulo[17], benefiting professionals who, otherwise, would not have the conditions to access these tools.<\/p>\n

    In this perspective, as stated by Leonardo Sica, president of OAB\/SP: \u201cArtificial Intelligence is already part of the routine of the legal profession, as shown by the data in the report. Today, the debate is no longer about whether it will be used, but about how to integrate it strategically into the work\u201d[18].<\/p>\n

    \n

    4. RISKS OF THE USE OF AI IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The aforementioned case of the injunction based on a non-existent rule illustrates, with surgical precision, the risk of hallucination in the use of Artificial Intelligence in the judiciary. Generative AI systems, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and similar tools, as a rule, do not perform direct legal research in official normative databases, but produce responses based on statistical patterns of language, generating probabilistically plausible texts, but not always legally correct.<\/p>\n

    The risk of hallucinations is not marginal. In Brazil, cases of lawyers who cited non-existent case law produced by AI have already been recorded in several courts. These episodes demonstrate that the use of AI, especially generative AI, can result in the fabrication of judicial precedents[19], doctrinal citations[20], case numbers, and even summaries of court decisions with significant frequency.<\/p>\n

    To mitigate this risk of hallucination, the need arises to implement architectures such as RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation)[21]. Unlike purely generative models, RAG forces the AI to consult reliable and updated legal databases before formulating a response, linking the textual output to real normative and jurisprudential sources, drastically reducing the statistical ‘creativity’ that leads to the invention of precedents.<\/p>\n

    In another point, the lack of transparency and explainability constitutes the second major risk. When a judicial decision is assisted by AI, for example, the parties have the right to know if the reasoning reflects genuine human analysis or an automated output. CNJ Resolution No. 615\/2025 imposes this transparency, but effectiveness depends on concrete traceability mechanisms that must be implemented by the courts.<\/p>\n

    The third structural risk is the reinforcement of biases. AI models are trained with historical data that reflect pre-existing inequalities. In this way, if the predominant case law presents biases (such as unequal treatment involving color, gender, or socioeconomic condition), AI will tend not only to reproduce them but to amplify them, giving them an appearance of technical neutrality.<\/p>\n

    The most emblematic case is that of the COMPAS system[22], used in the North American criminal justice system to calculate recidivism risks. After an investigation by ProPublica (2016)[23], it was demonstrated that Black defendants were 45% more likely to receive high-risk scores than whites in equivalent situations.<\/p>\n

    Finally, there is the risk of weakening human analysis and reasoning. Given the ease with which AI produces long, formally correct, and persuasive texts, it can induce a culture of uncritical delegation, in which the professional limits themselves to superficially reviewing the machine’s output.<\/p>\n

    As demonstrated in the aforementioned OAB report, it is revealed that 76% of lawyers who use GenAI frequently employ it to create legal documents and pieces, so that, when human supervision is reduced to a dynamic reading before signing, the judicial system begins to function, in practice, with reasoning generated by machines.<\/p>\n

    The case of the phantom MP is precisely that, given that a normative text that does not exist was incorporated into a judicial decision with a billion-dollar impact. Regardless of whether the fabrication was intentional or the product of AI hallucination, the fact that the text was not checked against the primary source before integrating the reasoning for the injunction reveals a systemic verification failure.<\/p>\n

    \n

    5. GOVERNANCE AND LIMITS<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Faced with these benefits and risks, the construction of an appropriate governance framework for the use of AI in the litigation process is a task that involves multiple dimensions, such as regulatory, institutional, professional, and ethical.<\/p>\n

    At the regulatory level, CNJ Resolution No. 615\/2025[24] represents a significant advance, by establishing that every AI system used in the Judiciary must be registered in the Sinapses Platform[25], classified by risk level, and submitted to audits.<\/p>\n

    Human supervision is mandatory at all stages, and the resolution imposes the offer of “continuous training for magistrates and public servants on the risks of automation, algorithmic biases, and critical analysis of the results generated by AI” (art. 3, VIII).<\/p>\n

    In the professional sphere, Recommendation No. 001\/2024 of the Federal Council of the OAB[26] links the use of GenAI to the Code of Ethics and Discipline and the Statute of the Legal Profession, requiring human supervision, preservation of professional secrecy, and transparent communication to the client.<\/p>\n

    For human supervision to be considered \u201ceffective,\u201d as required by article 3, VII of CNJ Resolution No. 615\/2025, it cannot be limited to a grammatical review. It is essential to establish a mandatory validation flow of primary sources, where each judgment or article of law cited by the AI must be manually checked in the official repositories of the courts, preventing the professional from becoming a mere endorser of automated errors.<\/p>\n

    At the legislative level, Bill 2,338\/2023, already approved in the Senate, is moving through the Chamber of Deputies and proposes comprehensive regulation regarding the development, promotion, and use of AI, including classification of systems by risk, rights of those affected, transparency obligations, and civil liability.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, the structure of the Bill presents relevant advances, such as the categorization of AI systems into risk levels, namely: excessive (Art. 13), in relation to which development, implementation, and use are prohibited, and high (Art. 14), whose systems are subject to reinforced governance obligations.<\/p>\n

    Regarding civil liability, in general, the project preserves existing regimes, but introduces the inversion of the burden of proof when the victim is vulnerable or when the characteristics of the AI system make it excessively burdensome for the victim (arts. 35 to 39).<\/p>\n

    About institutional governance, the project creates the National System of Regulation and Governance of Artificial Intelligence (SAI), with administrative sanctions that can reach R$ 50 million per infraction or 2% of the gross turnover of the economic group (Art. 50, II), in addition to partial or total suspension of the system and the prohibition of processing certain databases.<\/p>\n

    Nevertheless, the project raises relevant criticisms and concerns. A first point concerns the choice of the ANPD as the competent authority that will coordinate the SAI, given that the latter, originally created to oversee compliance with the LGPD, already faces budgetary and personnel limitations for its current duties. Thus, assigning it the coordination of the entire AI regulatory ecosystem may overburden the Authority and compromise the effectiveness of supervision.<\/p>\n

    This risk classification structure adopted by the Brazilian legislator maintains close symmetry with the AI Act of the European Union[27]. Both norms seek a balance between the promotion of innovation and the absolute prohibition of systems that present unacceptable risks to fundamental rights, consolidating a global standard of regulation centered on risk and the protection of human dignity.<\/p>\n

    In this perspective, the convergence between these sectoral norms and future legislation will be essential for the construction of a coherent normative ecosystem.<\/p>\n

    \n

    6. CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The incorporation of artificial intelligence into the Brazilian justice system represents one of the most relevant developments in the digitalization process of the Judiciary and of contemporary legal practice itself. Far from being a merely prospective phenomenon, the use of these technologies already integrates forensic practice, judicial management, and procedural processing, with a concrete impact on the organization of work, the screening of demands, the drafting of minutes, the recovery of precedents, and the rationalization of repetitive activities.<\/p>\n

    These benefits, however, do not eliminate relevant legal, ethical, and institutional risks. Recent experience demonstrates that the inadequate use of AI can compromise the reliability of jurisdictional activity and legal practice, especially when there is uncritical reproduction of automated responses, the use of non-existent precedents, the invention of normative foundations, the opacity of the systems employed, and the weakening of the duty of human review.<\/p>\n

    In litigation matters, such problems assume particular gravity because legal argumentation depends on technical precision, fidelity to sources, and argumentative responsibility, not being compatible with content that is merely plausible or well-constructed in appearance. The appearance of textual sophistication produced by generative tools does not replace the duty of legal verification, nor does it remove the need for professional control over the content presented in court.<\/p>\n

    For this reason, contemporary discussion should not be formulated in terms of absolute acceptance or rejection of artificial intelligence in law, but rather around the conditions of its legitimate and responsible use. The central point is not in prohibiting technology, but in establishing normative and institutional parameters capable of reconciling innovation with legal certainty.<\/p>\n

    Faced with this scenario, contemporary legal training must transcend traditional technical education, incorporating digital literacy and AI curation skills. The professional of the future will not only be the one who knows the law but the one capable of auditing algorithms, identifying biases, and ensuring that technology remains an instrument of aid, without ever replacing the judgment of value and ethical responsibility inherent in the exercise of Law.<\/p>\n

    In summary, artificial intelligence offers real gains to the justice system, both on the side of the legal profession and in the Judiciary itself, but only when used within a governance model that preserves the centrality of the human person, the responsibility of human agents, and the integrity of the process. Its value lies in expanding capabilities, but not in transferring to it the core of legal activity, which is essentially human.<\/p>\n

    \n

    \n

    [1] Lawyer. Master’s student in Business Law at PUC-SP. Graduated in Law from PUC-SP and in Systems Analysis and Development from IFSP. Co-author of books and author of articles on business law, digital law, artificial intelligence, and intellectual property.<\/p>\n

    [2] Lawyer practicing in Digital Law, strategic civil and criminal litigation, personal data protection, and combating digital fraud and scams. Post-graduate student in Civil Procedure at PUC-RS. Graduated in Law from Anhanguera Educacional.<\/p>\n

    [3] G1. Justice suspended import tax on oil companies based on a section of an MP that does not exist, says prosecution. G1 Economia, Apr 10, 2026. Available at: https:\/\/g1.globo.com\/economia\/noticia\/2026\/04\/10\/justica-suspendeu-imposto-de-importacao-a-petroleiras-com-base-em-trecho-de-mp-que-nao-existe-diz-procuradoria.ghtml<\/a>. Accessed: Apr 15, 2026.<\/p>\n

    [4] STF, Complaint No. 78890\/BA, Justice Cristiano Zanin, j. 05\/12\/2025.<\/p>\n

    [5] Judge reprimands lawyer who replaced oral argument with AI recording. Migalhas, 2025. Available at: https:\/\/www.migalhas.com.br\/quentes\/430527\/juiz-repreende-advogado-que-substituiu-sustentacao-por-gravacao-de-ia<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/15\/2025.<\/p>\n

    [6] SILV\u00c9RIO, Karina. Errors in a Piau\u00ed sentence raise suspicion of the use of artificial intelligence in a decision on payroll-deductible loans. Juristas, 2026. Available at: https:\/\/juristas.com.br\/noticias\/erros-em-sentenca-do-piaui-levantam-suspeita-de-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-em-decisao-sobre-emprestimo-consignado\/<\/a>. Accessed: 03\/24\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [7] From 80 to 969 sentences: judge is investigated by TJ\/MA for the use of AI. Migalhas, 2025. Available at: https:\/\/www.migalhas.com.br\/quentes\/429513\/de-80-para-969-sentencas-juiz-e-investigado-pelo-tj-ma-por-uso-de-ia<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/15\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [8] Godoy, Claudio Luiz Bueno. Human intervention in the process of explanation and review of automated decisions. In: Artificial intelligence: interdisciplinary and international visions, Coord. Chinellato, S. S\u00e3o Paulo: Almedina, 2023.<\/p>\n

    [9] Judiciary begins 2026 with the lowest backlog of pending cases in six years. CNJ, 2026. Available at: https:\/\/www.cnj.jus.br\/judiciario-inicia-2026-com-o-menor-estoque-de-processos-pendentes-em-seis-anos\/<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/15\/2025.<\/p>\n

    [10] Mazzoco, Heitor. Research shows that 76% of lawyers use AI for drafting procedural documents. 2026, Veja. Available at: https:\/\/veja.abril.com.br\/brasil\/pesquisa-mostra-que-76-dos-advogados-usam-ia-para-elaboracao-de-pecas-processuais\/<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/15\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [11] Report brings a balance of STJ actions focusing on precedents, technology, and international projection. STJ, 2026. Available at: https:\/\/www.stj.jus.br\/sites\/portalp\/Paginas\/Comunicacao\/Noticias\/2026\/24022026-Relatorio-traz-balanco-de-acoes-do-STJ-com-foco-em-precedentes–tecnologia-e-projecao-internacional.aspx<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/15\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [12] STF expands the use of artificial intelligence in support of jurisdictional activity. STF, 2025. Available at: https:\/\/noticias.stf.jus.br\/postsnoticias\/stf-amplia-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-em-apoio-a-atividade-jurisdicional\/<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/15\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [13] Available at: https:\/\/noticias.stf.jus.br\/postsnoticias\/stf-lanca-maria-ferramenta-de-inteligencia-artificial-que-dara-mais-agilidade-aos-servicos-do-tribunal\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    [14] Available at: https:\/\/www.cnj.jus.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/relatorio-ia-2024-resumo-executivo-set2025.pdf<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/15\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [15] Art. 3. The development, governance, auditing, monitoring, and responsible use of AI solutions by the courts have as principles: VII \u2013 effective, periodic, and appropriate human supervision in the life cycle of artificial intelligence, considering the degree of risk involved, with the possibility of adjusting this supervision according to the level of automation and impact of the solution used.<\/p>\n

    [16] Report Impact of Generative AI on Law: overview of adoption, perceptions, and results. 2026 Edition. Available at: https:\/\/docsend.com\/view\/s2cqwb9j38tvi867<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/11\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [17] Available at: https:\/\/www.oabsp.org.br\/jornaldaadvocacia\/26-03-26-1127-tres-em-cada-quatro-advogados-usam-inteligencia-artificial-no-trabalho<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/11\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [18] Impact of Generative AI on Law: overview of adoption, perceptions, and results. 2026 Edition, p. 11.<\/p>\n

    [19] Available at: https:\/\/www.tjsc.jus.br\/web\/imprensa\/-\/tjsc-multa-autor-de-recurso-por-jurisprudencia-falsa-gerada-por-ia<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/11\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [20] Available at: https:\/\/portal.trt12.jus.br\/noticias\/autora-de-acao-e-multada-apos-advogada-inventar-jurisprudencia-e-desembargador<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/11\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [21] LEWIS, Patrick et al. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020. Available at: https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2005.11401<\/a><\/p>\n

    [22] Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions.<\/p>\n

    [23] Available at: https:\/\/www.propublica.org\/article\/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/11\/2026<\/p>\n

    [24] Available at: https:\/\/atos.cnj.jus.br\/files\/original1555302025031467d4517244566.pdf<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/13\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [25] The SINAPSES system is a platform for the large-scale development and availability of artificial intelligence models, also commonly known as the \u201cAI Model Factory.\u201d<\/p>\n

    [26] Available at: https:\/\/diario.oab.org.br\/pages\/materia\/842347<\/a>. Accessed: 04\/13\/2026.<\/p>\n

    [27] Regulation (EU) 2024\/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Dr. Cezar Augusto Najjarian [1] Dr. Guilherme Oliveira da Silva [2]   INTRODUCTION On 04\/10\/2026, a decision was rendered granting an injunction suspending the import […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1861,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[33],"class_list":["post-2135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-artigos","tag-contencioso-digital-prevencao-a-fraude"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nReflections on the Advancement of AI Use in Contentious Proceedings: Benefits and Risks of Adopting Generative AI by Courts and Lawyers - Peck Advogados<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[:pb]Reflex\u00f5es sobre o avan\u00e7o do uso da IA no Processo Contencioso: Benef\u00edcios e Riscos da ado\u00e7\u00e3o de IA generativa pelos tribunais e advogados[:en]Reflections on the Advancement of AI Use in Contentious Proceedings: Benefits and Risks of Adopting Generative AI by Courts and Lawyers[:] - Peck Advogados\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Dr. Cezar Augusto Najjarian [1] Dr. Guilherme Oliveira da Silva [2]   INTRODUCTION On 04\/10\/2026, a decision was rendered granting an injunction suspending the import […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Peck Advogados\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-12T12:00:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-12T14:06:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Banner-Futebol.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"750\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"350\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Gustavo\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Gustavo\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Gustavo\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/c3c329bd5e43bb24c72c0516709e87ad\"},\"headline\":\"Reflections on the Advancement of AI Use in Contentious Proceedings: Benefits and Risks of Adopting Generative AI by Courts and Lawyers\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-12T12:00:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-12T14:06:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":7222,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Banner-Futebol.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Digital Litigation & Fraud Prevention\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Artigos\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/\",\"name\":\"[:pb]Reflex\u00f5es sobre o avan\u00e7o do uso da IA no Processo Contencioso: Benef\u00edcios e Riscos da ado\u00e7\u00e3o de IA generativa pelos tribunais e advogados[:en]Reflections on the Advancement of AI Use in Contentious Proceedings: Benefits and Risks of Adopting Generative AI by Courts and Lawyers[:] - Peck Advogados\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Banner-Futebol.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-12T12:00:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-12T14:06:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Banner-Futebol.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Banner-Futebol.jpg\",\"width\":750,\"height\":350},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"In\u00edcio\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reflex\u00f5es sobre o avan\u00e7o do uso da IA no Processo Contencioso: Benef\u00edcios e Riscos da ado\u00e7\u00e3o de IA generativa pelos tribunais e advogados\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/\",\"name\":\"Peck Advogados\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Peck Advogados\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/favIcon1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/favIcon1.png\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Peck Advogados\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/c3c329bd5e43bb24c72c0516709e87ad\",\"name\":\"Gustavo\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/13bb9cef6916b0a9b5627144277ea2dd9180b15445e949eca3b20c8807887e30?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/13bb9cef6916b0a9b5627144277ea2dd9180b15445e949eca3b20c8807887e30?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/13bb9cef6916b0a9b5627144277ea2dd9180b15445e949eca3b20c8807887e30?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Gustavo\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/peckadv.com.br\\\/en\\\/author\\\/gustavo\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"[:pb]Reflex\u00f5es sobre o avan\u00e7o do uso da IA no Processo Contencioso: Benef\u00edcios e Riscos da ado\u00e7\u00e3o de IA generativa pelos tribunais e advogados[:en]Reflections on the Advancement of AI Use in Contentious Proceedings: Benefits and Risks of Adopting Generative AI by Courts and Lawyers[:] - Peck Advogados","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[:pb]Reflex\u00f5es sobre o avan\u00e7o do uso da IA no Processo Contencioso: Benef\u00edcios e Riscos da ado\u00e7\u00e3o de IA generativa pelos tribunais e advogados[:en]Reflections on the Advancement of AI Use in Contentious Proceedings: Benefits and Risks of Adopting Generative AI by Courts and Lawyers[:] - Peck Advogados","og_description":"Dr. Cezar Augusto Najjarian [1] Dr. Guilherme Oliveira da Silva [2]   INTRODUCTION On 04\/10\/2026, a decision was rendered granting an injunction suspending the import […]","og_url":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/","og_site_name":"Peck Advogados","article_published_time":"2026-05-12T12:00:21+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-12T14:06:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":750,"height":350,"url":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Banner-Futebol.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Gustavo","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Gustavo","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/"},"author":{"name":"Gustavo","@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/#\/schema\/person\/c3c329bd5e43bb24c72c0516709e87ad"},"headline":"Reflections on the Advancement of AI Use in Contentious Proceedings: Benefits and Risks of Adopting Generative AI by Courts and Lawyers","datePublished":"2026-05-12T12:00:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-12T14:06:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/"},"wordCount":7222,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Banner-Futebol.jpg","keywords":["Digital Litigation & Fraud Prevention"],"articleSection":["Artigos"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/","url":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/","name":"[:pb]Reflex\u00f5es sobre o avan\u00e7o do uso da IA no Processo Contencioso: Benef\u00edcios e Riscos da ado\u00e7\u00e3o de IA generativa pelos tribunais e advogados[:en]Reflections on the Advancement of AI Use in Contentious Proceedings: Benefits and Risks of Adopting Generative AI by Courts and Lawyers[:] - Peck Advogados","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Banner-Futebol.jpg","datePublished":"2026-05-12T12:00:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-12T14:06:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Banner-Futebol.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Banner-Futebol.jpg","width":750,"height":350},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/reflexoes-sobre-o-avanco-do-uso-da-ia-no-processo-contencioso-beneficios-e-riscos-da-adocao-de-ia-generativa-pelos-tribunais-e-advogados\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"In\u00edcio","item":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reflex\u00f5es sobre o avan\u00e7o do uso da IA no Processo Contencioso: Benef\u00edcios e Riscos da ado\u00e7\u00e3o de IA generativa pelos tribunais e advogados"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/#website","url":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/","name":"Peck Advogados","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/#organization","name":"Peck Advogados","url":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/favIcon1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/favIcon1.png","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Peck Advogados"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/#\/schema\/person\/c3c329bd5e43bb24c72c0516709e87ad","name":"Gustavo","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/13bb9cef6916b0a9b5627144277ea2dd9180b15445e949eca3b20c8807887e30?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/13bb9cef6916b0a9b5627144277ea2dd9180b15445e949eca3b20c8807887e30?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/13bb9cef6916b0a9b5627144277ea2dd9180b15445e949eca3b20c8807887e30?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Gustavo"},"url":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/author\/gustavo\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2135"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2135\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2140,"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2135\/revisions\/2140"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1861"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peckadv.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}