The blunder in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia is another in a litany of mishaps AI has caused in justice systems around the world.<\/p>\n
MELBOURNE, VIC \u2014 A senior lawyer in Australia has apologized to a judge for filing submissions in a murder <\/a>case that included fake quotes and nonexistent case judgments generated by artificial intelligence.<\/p>\n The blunder in the Supreme Court of Victoria state is another in a litany of mishaps\u00a0AI has caused in justice systems<\/a> around the world.<\/p>\n Defense lawyer Rishi Nathwani, who holds the prestigious legal title of King\u2019s Counsel, took \u201cfull responsibility\u201d for filing incorrect information in submissions in the case of a teenager charged with murder, according to court documents seen by The Associated Press on Friday.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are deeply sorry and embarrassed for what occurred,\u201d Nathwani told Justice James Elliott on Wednesday, on behalf of the defense team.<\/p>\n The\u00a0AI-generated errors<\/a> caused a 24-hour delay in resolving a case that Elliott had hoped to conclude on Wednesday. Elliott ruled on Thursday that Nathwani\u2019s client, who cannot be identified because he is a minor, was not guilty of murder because of mental impairment.<\/p>\n \u201cAt the risk of understatement, the manner in which these events have unfolded is unsatisfactory,\u201d Elliott told lawyers on Thursday.<\/p>\n \u201cThe ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice,\u201d Elliott added.<\/p>\n The fake submissions included fabricated quotes from a speech to the state legislature and nonexistent case citations purportedly from the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n The errors were discovered by Elliott\u2019s associates, who couldn\u2019t find the cases and requested that defense lawyers provide copies.<\/p>\n The lawyers admitted the citations \u201cdo not exist\u201d and that the submission contained \u201cfictitious quotes,\u201d court documents say.<\/p>\n The lawyers explained they checked that the initial citations were accurate and wrongly assumed the others would also be correct.<\/p>\n The submissions were also sent to prosecutor Daniel Porceddu, who didn\u2019t check their accuracy.<\/p>\n The judge noted that the Supreme Court released guidelines last year for how lawyers use AI.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,\u201d Elliott said.<\/p>\n The court documents do not identify the generative artificial intelligence system used by the lawyers.<\/p>\n In a comparable case in the United States in 2023, a federal judge\u00a0imposed $5,000 fines<\/a> on two lawyers and a law firm after\u00a0ChatGPT<\/a> was blamed for their submission of fictitious legal research in an aviation injury claim.<\/p>\n Judge P. Kevin Castel said they acted in bad faith. But he credited their apologies and remedial steps taken in explaining why harsher sanctions were not necessary to ensure they or others won\u2019t again let artificial intelligence tools prompt them to produce fake legal history in their arguments.<\/p>\n Later that year, more fictitious court rulings invented by AI were cited in legal papers filed by lawyers for Michael Cohen, a former personal lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump. Cohen took the blame, saying he didn\u2019t realize that the Google tool he was using for legal research was also capable of so-called AI hallucinations.<\/p>\n