A Victorian lawyer has made history as the first in Australia to garner professional sanctions for utilizing artificial intelligence in court, losing his right to practice as a leading attorney after generating unverified citations from AI.

According to a report by Guardian Australia, during a hearing last October on July 19, 2024, an unnamed lawyer representing her husband in a marital dispute provided the court with a list of prior cases that Judge Amanda Humphreys had requested regarding the enforcement of applications in this case.

Upon returning to her chamber, Humphreys stated in her ruling that neither she nor her colleagues could find any cases listed. When the issue was revisited in court, the lawyer disclosed that the list had been generated using AI-based legal software.

He confessed to not verifying the accuracy of the information before submitting it to the court.

The attorney extended an “unconditional apology” to the court, requesting not to be referred for investigation, saying he would “integrate lessons that he has taken to heart.”

He acknowledged his lack of understanding of how the software operated and recognized the necessity to verify the accuracy of AI-assisted research. He agreed to cover the costs incurred by the opposing lawyer due to the canceled hearing.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking NewsEmail}

Humphreys accepted the apology, admitting that the stress it caused was unlikely to be repeated. However, given the prevalence of AI tools in the legal field, she noted that referrals for investigation were crucial due to the role of the Victorian Legal Services Commission in examining professional conduct.

The lawyer was subsequently referred to the Victorian Legal Services Commission for investigation, marking one of the first reported cases in Australia involving a lawyer using AI in court to produce fabricated citations.

The Victoria Legal Services Board confirmed on Tuesday that the lawyer’s practice certificate was altered on August 19 due to the findings of the investigation. This action means he no longer has the right to practice as a primary attorney, cannot handle trust funds, and is restricted to working solely as an employee’s lawyer.

The lawyer is required to undergo two years of supervised legal practice, with quarterly reports to the board from both him and his supervisor during this period.

A spokesman remarked, “The board’s regulatory actions on this matter reflect our commitment to ensuring that legal professionals using AI in their practices do so responsibly and in alignment with their obligations.”

Since this incident, over 20 additional cases have been reported in Australian courts where litigants or self-represented individuals used artificial intelligence to prepare court documents, leading to the inclusion of false citations.

The lawyer in Western Australia is also under scrutiny by its state regulatory body regarding practice standards.

In Australia, there was at least one instance where a document was claimed to have been prepared using ChatGPT solely for the court, even though the document was generated before ChatGPT became publicly accessible.

The courts and legal associations acknowledge the role of AI in legal proceedings but continue to caution that this does not diminish lawyers’ professional judgment.

Juliana Warner of Australia’s Legal Council told Guardian Australia last month, “If lawyers are using these tools, it must be done with utmost care, always keeping in mind their professional and ethical obligations to the court and their clients.”

Warner further noted that while the court’s relation to cases involving AI-generated false citations raises “serious concerns,” a blanket ban on the use of generative AI in legal proceedings “is neither practical nor proportional and risks hindering access to both innovation and justice.”