Australian courts are facing growing concerns over the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal profession, as incidents of lawyers relying on generative AI for case submissions lead to significant errors. These errors, including the use of fabricated case citations, are raising ethical and professional dilemmas within the legal community.
In one high-profile case, a lawyer who was representing a client in an immigration appeal used ChatGPT to help draft case summaries. Unfortunately, the AI-generated content included 17 fictitious case references. When this was revealed in court, the lawyer was left deeply embarrassed and was referred to the New South Wales Legal Services Commissioner. The court emphasized the need for setting an example to prevent unchecked AI usage in legal practices.
The increasing use of AI has sparked a nationwide debate in Australia. A survey by Thomson Reuters indicated that 40% of law firms were experimenting with AI, but only 9% of lawyers were actively using it in daily practice. Some firms, such as Leap, have AI-integrated tools designed to assist lawyers but stress the importance of double-checking AI outputs. However, errors such as incorrect case citations have still made their way into the courts.
Concerns extend beyond lawyers’ use of AI. Judges have also raised alarms about affidavits and self-represented litigants using AI-generated content. For instance, a personal reference submitted in the Australian Capital Territory’s Supreme Court was deemed suspiciously AI-generated due to its unnatural language. Similarly, a case before the Victorian Court of Appeal revealed that a student’s legal documents contained fictitious case citations generated by AI.
Legal professionals are not the only ones grappling with these issues. Experts in AI ethics, such as Professor Jeannie Paterson from the University of Melbourne, suggest that AI literacy is a critical issue. She believes that proper training on AI’s limitations is essential for preventing errors and maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings. According to Paterson, AI can’t exercise the judgment or ethical considerations that human lawyers are trained to provide.
Regulatory bodies are beginning to take action. Last month, the New South Wales Supreme Court issued a practice note limiting the use of generative AI in legal work, particularly in generating affidavits, witness statements, or other documents to be presented as evidence. This move highlights the growing concerns about the potential for AI to undermine the quality and reliability of legal documents.
The Queensland Legal Services Commissioner also expressed concern about the risks of AI enabling the unlawful delivery of legal services. It is now more important than ever for the public to ensure they are seeking advice from qualified and licensed legal practitioners, rather than relying on AI tools alone.
The legal profession’s relationship with AI is still in its early stages, and while it holds promise for improving efficiency, it also comes with significant ethical and professional challenges. As AI continues to evolve, so too must the legal frameworks and professional standards that govern its use in the courtroom.
Read more: