Betancourt Gómez v. Colegio de Profesionales de la Enfermería de Puerto Rico
Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de San Juan (Puerto Rico) · P.R. T.P.I. (San Juan)
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Betancourt Gómez v. Colegio de Profesionales de la Enfermería de P.R., Civil Núm. SJ2023CV10615 (P.R. T.P.I. San Juan Aug. 22, 2025) (Ortiz Modestti, J.)
- Decided
- August 22, 2025
Summary
Attorneys María V. Irizarry Centeno (RUA 10355) and Anissa Michelle Bonilla Irizarry (RUA 18907), representing co-defendant Tomás Alvarado Colón, filed a motion to dismiss containing at least six fabricated or distorted citations to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, including a fictitious citation and quotation attributed to Suárez v. CMI Caribe, 180 DPR 367 (2010). Counsel attributed the errors to "limitaciones derivadas de la consulta de fuentes generales en internet" (translation: limitations arising from consulting general internet sources) and, as the court noted, did not expressly admit using AI. Judge Larissa N. Ortiz Modestti suggested in a footnote that a recurring "Ashcroft v. Global" misreading of Ashcroft v. Iqbal "pudiera ser una falla de generación del documento por aplicaciones tecnológicas no revisadas" (translation: could be a failure in generating the document by unreviewed technological applications), and found that the conduct involved using technological tools "sin la debida diligencia y supervisión" (translation: without due diligence and supervision). The court grounded its analysis in Canon 35 of the Puerto Rico Code of Professional Ethics, the newly approved Rule 1.19 on Technological Competence and Diligence, and ABA Formal Opinion 512.
- AI tool:
- Not identified (counsel did not expressly admit using AI; the court found the errors consistent with unreviewed output of technological tools)
- Sanction amount:
- $1,000
What sanction did the court impose?
Under Rule 9.3 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure, the court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction on counsel, payable in internal revenue stamps within 30 days, and ordered the Secretary to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico for disciplinary evaluation of both attorneys. Citing Municipio de Carolina v. CH Properties, 200 DPR 701 (2018), Judge Ortiz Modestti recused herself from this case and any other case involving either attorney, and referred the case to the Civil Coordinating Judge for reassignment to the parallel courtroom. On April 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico (2026 TSPR 41) found that both attorneys had breached Canons 18, 35 and 38 of the Code of Professional Ethics, warned them that further unethical conduct could expose them to more severe discipline, including suspension, and closed the complaint.
Why does Betancourt Gómez v. Colegio de Profesionales de la Enfermería de Puerto Rico matter for law firms using AI?
Betancourt is a Puerto Rico trial-court sanction for fabricated and distorted citations to the island’s Supreme Court. The court relied on Canon 35 and on Rule 1.19 of the newly approved Reglas de Conducta Profesional (on technological competence and diligence), whose commentary says that presenting documents without validating content generated by technological tools can constitute a lapse in diligence; the order notes that the new rules take effect on January 1, 2026. It also relied on ABA Formal Opinion 512. The court imposed a $1,000 sanction under Rule 9.3 for causing unjustified delay, sent the matter to the Supreme Court for disciplinary evaluation, and recused from any other case involving either attorney. In April 2026 the Supreme Court, evaluating the conduct under the existing Code of Professional Ethics, found violations of Canons 18, 35 and 38, closed the complaint with a formal warning, and reminded the bar of its “deber de validar el contenido generado mediante herramientas tecnológicas” (translation: duty to validate content generated by technological tools). For firms with Puerto Rico practices or co-counsel arrangements, both decisions treat unverified tool output as an ethics issue as well as a procedural one.