An Australian solicitor found to have produced cases created by AI for the court has been allowed to remain in the profession.

The Victorian Legal Services Board, the south east state’s regulator, placed restrictions on the solicitor but ruled he could still practise as an employee of a law firm, under supervision for the next two years.

The sanction followed the solicitor being reported after tendering a list of authorities generated by AI which included inaccurate citations and summaries.

Similar cases have come through the courts in England and Wales but the consequences have yet to be dealt with by regulators in this country, so the approach of another jurisdiction will be closely monitored as a potential yardstick for penalising this type of misconduct.

Read more

A judgment from August 2024 from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recorded that the solicitor, identified only as Mr Dayal, had produced a list of cases which did not exist after relying on AI. He had offered an unconditional apology for what was accepted to be a breach of professional standards, but he told the court he had not intended to mislead.

The solicitor explained that he did not fully understand how the research tool worked and he should have verified the results generated for accuracy and integrity.

Judge A Humphreys acknowledged how stressful the matter had been for the solicitor and said it was unlikely the conduct would be repeated. But he opted to report the matter to the regulator for further investigation, in part to raise issues around the increasing use of AI by legal practitioners in litigation more generally.

The regulator ruled that the solicitor could no longer be principal of his firm, could not longer be authorised to handle trust money and could not operate his own practice. During his two-year period of supervision, he and his supervisor must report to the board on a quarterly basis.

The regulator added: ‘The board’s regulatory action in this matter demonstrates our commitment to ensuring legal practitioners who choose to use AI in their legal practice do so in a responsible way that is consistent with their obligations. We strongly advise legal practitioners to refer to our statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice, and if they intend on using AI in the course of legal practice, consider undertaking continuing professional development to improve their knowledge.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.