A Victorian lawyer who sought to rely on non-existent AI generated authorities, has had his practising certificate varied following regulatory action by the Victorian Legal Services Board.
This follows similar instances recently reported on ( Federal Court orders costs for use of AI) where indemnity costs orders have been made against solicitors, following inappropriate reliance on AI generated materials.
In this instance, a lawyer who was the principal of his firm, had used a generative AI tool incorporated into his legal practice management software, to generate a list and summary of authorities. The lawyer did not verify the authorities or the accuracy of the information prior to tendering it to Court.
The lawyer acknowledged that the authorities did not exist, and that neither he, nor any other lawyer, had reviewed the output generated by the AI research tool. However he also acknowledged that he did not fully understand how the research tool worked.
While the lawyer took steps to mitigate the impact of the tendering of submissions which contained non-existent authorities, including voluntarily making a payment to the opposing solicitors for wasted costs, the Federal Circuit and Family Circuit decided to refer him to the lawyers' regulatory body, the Victorian Legal Services Board.
The Court reiterated the guidelines issued to the profession by the Supreme Court and County Court ( Guidelines) in emphasising that the output of generative AI is not the product of legal reasoning, nor is generative AI a legal research tool. In referring the lawyer to the regulatory body, the Court noted that the lawyer had breached the expected professional standards.
The VLSB then varied the lawyers' practising certificate, resulting in the lawyer:
- no longer being entitled to practise as a principal lawyer
- no longer being authorised to handle trust money
- no longer operating his own law practice
- only practising as an employee solicitor
- undertaking supervised legal practice for a period of two years
- both the practitioner and his supervisor reporting to the Victorian Legal Services Board on a quarterly basis during the period of supervised legal practice.
The above is a series limitation on the ability to practice for a lawyer who was running his own firm as a principal. It is a stark reminder to the profession to use AI appropriately in their legal practice, to ensure they understand the tools they are using in their practice and the associated risks, and above all, to operate with the overarching duty to the Court as their key guide.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
