01
Factual background & dispute
- Two unrelated proceedings contained legal citations that could not be verified or accurately supported.
- Generative AI use affected the preparation of the materials to different degrees.
- The court examined drafting, review, approval and the explanations and corrective action taken after the problems emerged.
02
Core issues & judicial focus
- The verification standard for legal professionals using generative AI
- Supervisory responsibility of team leaders, signing lawyers and advocates
- Disclosure and correction duties after fabricated citations are discovered
03
Judicial finding & holding
- The court stated that every legal authority submitted to a court must be checked against an authoritative source.
- AI use leaves professional responsibility for accuracy and authenticity with the lawyer.
- The judgment addressed the procedural consequences in each matter and directed referral of relevant materials to professional regulators.
04
Practical risk implications
01Implement citation-by-citation verification, second-person review and final approval records for court filings.
02Allocate responsibility for AI-assisted research, drafting, review and advocacy across the matter team.
03Once an error is found, stop relying on the affected material, conduct a complete review and provide the court with an accurate account.