MTC: Judges Will Be Hunting These AI Tricks After Brazil’s Scandal
/
it is hard to believe that judges will be happy if lawyer insert “code” into their online filings!
Recently, Brazilian court officials uncovered something that should make every tech‑savvy lawyer sit up straight. In a labor court, staff discovered a filing that looked ordinary to the human eye—until they examined it more closely. Hidden in the document was text written in white font on a white background, invisible to anyone casually reading the PDF but fully legible to the court’s AI system.
That invisible text was not a typo. It was an instruction—what technologists call a “prompt injection”—telling the court’s AI software to review the case only superficially and not to challenge the evidence submitted. In other words, the filing was designed to trick the judiciary’s own AI tools into rubber‑stamping a favorable outcome by smuggling in commands that humans would never see.
Fortunately, court staff caught the scheme before it affected the proceedings. But Brazilian authorities immediately recognized the incident as a new species of digital fraud and began discussing safeguards: automatic detection of invisible text, formatting checks before AI processing, and stronger human oversight at every stage. They also raised the prospect of stricter ethics rules and sanctions for lawyers who try to manipulate court AI systems.
For our purposes, the Brazil case does three important things:
It confirms that AI now sits inside judicial workflows—not just law firm workflows.
It shows that some lawyers will try to game those systems if they think they can get away with it.
It gives us a concrete example of what not to do and what to watch for as courts in the U.S. and elsewhere adopt similar tools.
From an ABA perspective, a “white‑text prompt injection” is not clever lawyering—it’s a direct collision with Model Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) and Model Rule 8.4(c)’s prohibition on conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. And because the Brazil incident exploits the very AI tools that the judiciary is using, it also implicates Model Rule 1.1 and Comment 8: the duty of technology competence now includes understanding how these systems can be abused.
So let’s unpack what we should learn from Brazil—starting with what not to do.
What Not To Do: Hidden Instructions and “Clever” Hacks
The Brazil case is a textbook on the wrong way to think about AI in litigation.
Do not embed hidden commands in filings (through white‑on‑white text, metadata, or other tricks) with the intent to influence how a court’s AI tools process your case.
Do not treat court‑side AI as just another system to be “SEO‑optimized” or hacked. Unlike a marketing algorithm, this is part of the machinery of justice; trying to tilt it in your favor crosses a bright ethical line.
Do not assume that “if the judge doesn’t see it, it doesn’t count.” Malicious prompts aimed at judicial AI are still part of your submission to the tribunal, and they reflect directly on your candor and honesty under Model Rules 3.3 and 8.4.
In short: if you would never say it to the judge in plain black‑and‑white text, you should not whisper it to the court’s AI in invisible text.
What To Watch For: How to Recognize This Behavior
lawyers need to be prepared to vet opposing counsel’s filings for ai injection!
The harder question is how you, as a solo or small‑firm lawyer, can spot similar tactics when others use them—especially when you don’t control the court’s systems.
Here are practical signals and questions:
Suspicious formatting in PDFs or Word files. Odd spacing, unexpected blank pages, or inconsistent fonts can sometimes signal hidden layers of text. While you won’t always spot white‑on‑white content, unusual formatting should prompt closer inspection.
Metadata anomalies. If you routinely examine document properties, look for multiple authors, unusual editing histories, or automation tags that do not match the face of the document. These can indicate heavy automated processing or embedded instructions.
Patterns in AI‑mediated decisions. If certain filings—often from the same party—seem to sail through automated queues or receive unusually favorable, boilerplate orders, you may be seeing the downstream effect of prompt manipulation or aggressive “AI‑targeted” drafting.
Because you usually won’t have direct access to the court’s internal AI, you may need to raise these concerns procedurally: requesting clarification on how filings are screened, asking whether AI systems were involved in certain steps, or moving for relief if you believe your client’s matter was prejudiced by automated processing.
How To Protect Yourself and Your Clients:
Brazil’s experience is a warning shot—not just about bad actors, but about what a healthy response should look like.
Here’s how to translate that into a practical “do this, not that” playbook for your own practice:
1. Assume courts will adopt AI—and plan for it:
Brazil’s judiciary uses AI to prioritize cases, draft reports, and propose decisions in response to massive backlogs. U.S. courts are already experimenting with similar tools, even if not as publicly. Competence under Model Rule 1.1 now includes staying informed about these trends and understanding their implications.
2. Build “AI integrity” into your litigation strategy.
Treat any automated system that touches your filings—court e‑filing portals, online forms, AI‑assisted triage tools—as part of the tribunal.
Resolve that you will never include hidden instructions, misleading metadata, or manipulative formatting in documents submitted to those systems.
3. Advocate for transparent safeguards.
In Brazil, authorities responded by exploring automatic detection of invisible text and stronger human oversight.
When U.S. courts announce AI pilots or tools, comment on proposed rules, advocate for clear notice when AI is used, and request mechanisms for lawyers to challenge AI‑influenced outcomes.
4. Document your own good‑faith use of AI.
it may be deemed a “fruad upon the court” if a lawyer injects ai into their electronic filings.
If you rely on AI to format or generate parts of your filings, keep internal records of prompts, outputs, and human review.
This documentation will help if a court or disciplinary body later asks how you ensured candor and accuracy, especially in a world where Brazil‑style abuses are making judges more skeptical.
Final Thoughts
AI isn’t just something we use; it’s now part of the institutional environment—just like e‑filing, CM/ECF, or digital signatures. The line between legitimate technology use and unethical manipulation is not about whether you use AI, but how you use it and whether you’re honest about it.
MTC
