Synopsis: An Australian lawyer was reported for using ChatGPT to draft court documents with fake case citations. The federal court flagged the issue, referring the lawyer to the NSW Legal Services Commissioner. This incident highlights growing concerns over AI misuse in legal proceedings, prompting stricter regulations for lawyers using generative AI.
An Australian lawyer was caught using ChatGPT to file court documents referenced as ‘non-existent’ cases. The Immigration minister stated that such conduct must be obstructed immediately as the Australian lawyer referred to the office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner for consideration.
The Australian lawyer had been reported to a state legal complaints commission, after it was revealed that he had used artificial intelligence to create court filings for an immigration case. The artificial intelligence platform produced case citations that were not authentic.
In a ruling decision by the federal circuit and family court, Justice Rania Skaros referred the lawyer, who had his name withheld from the ruling, to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) for further assessment.
During an appeal of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruling, the lawyer filed an amended application to the federal circuit and family court in October 2024, along with an outline of submissions. Justice Skaros stated that both documents included citations to cases and contained quotations from the tribunal’s decision that did not exist.
On 19th November, the lawyer submitted a letter to the court asserting that the errors were unintentional, expressing deep regret. During a hearing on 25th November, the lawyer acknowledged using ChatGPT to draft the documents.
It was stated by the lawyer that AI had been used to identify Australian cases, but it had generated nonexistent case law. Justice Skaros said that concern was expressed by the court regarding the lawyer’s conduct and his failure to verify the accuracy of the documents filed, mentioning that a considerable amount of time had been spent by the court and its associates verifying the citations and attempting to locate the purported authorities.
What Was The Reason Behind His Actions?
The lawyer mentioned that due to time constraints and health issues, he decided to use AI, in an affidavit that was provided to the court.
The Judgement said that the lawyer had accessed the site known as ChatGPT, entered certain words and the site prepared a summary of relevant cases for him. The lawyer stated that the summary appeared well-written, leading him to incorporate the authorities and references into his submissions without verifying the details.
The lawyer expressed deep regret about the incident and stated that he has undertaken measures to enhance his understanding of artificial intelligence.
Counsel for the Immigration Minister contended that the lawyer had failed to exercise sufficient diligence, given the public interest in the misuse of AI in legal proceedings. It was deemed in the public interest for cases involving the misuse of AI to be referred to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC).
The Final Verdict
The minister submitted that such conduct was likely to persist and must be curbed before it escalates.
Justice Skaros mentioned that the use of generative AI in legal proceedings is an ongoing and evolving issue and it was in the public interest of the OLSC to be made aware of such conduct.
This is the second legal case in Australia in which a lawyer has been referred to a regulatory body for utilizing artificial intelligence. Formerly, a Melbourne lawyer was referred to the Victorian legal complaints body last year after admitting to using artificial intelligence in a family court case that produced false case citations.
In a practice note issued by the NSW Supreme Court late last year, set to take effect on 03rd February, restrictions have been imposed on the use of generative AI by NSW lawyers. These restrictions include the stipulation that it must not be used to generate affidavits, witness statements, character references or other material tendered in evidence or used in cross-examination.
For the latest updates on Australian immigration, make sure to sign up to our newsletter today.
