In a prior blog post, AI Hallucinations Lawyers: Understanding the Risks: Ko v Li, I summarized the folly of a Toronto lawyer who was reprimanded by an Ontario judge for citing non-existent cases in a legal brief. The court ordered the lawyer to face a contempt of court hearing. The judge in the case just released a follow up decision, Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965, after the lawyer admitted the facts, apologized to the court, and proposed positive steps to address her ethical breaches.
Prior to the scheduling conference for the contempt motion, the lawyer delivered to the court a letter in which she explained that her factum had been prepared by her staff in part with the use of the ChatGPT platform. The errant cases were AI hallucinations. She also delivered a letter to the court in which she undertook to complete no fewer than six hours of Continuing Professional Development training in legal ethics and technology including addressing specifically the professional use and risks of AI tools in legal practice. She also revised her offending factum to remove all fake citations.
The lawyer, Jisuh Lee, also delivered this oral statement asking that the charges against her be dropped.
Oral Statement for Show Cause Hearing – May 16, 2025
Your Honour:
I wish to begin by expressing my sincere apologies to the Court for the events that occurred in connection with the May 1 hearing in Ko v. Li.
The factum I filed contained citations that were inaccurate and, as I now understand, referred to fictitious cases. I deeply regret this and fully accept responsibility. These authorities were drafted using a legal research tool powered by artificial intelligence. While this tool generated legal arguments, I made the grave mistake of failing to verify the case law before filing the factum with the Court.
I wish to emphasize that I did not intend to mislead the Court or to present non-existent authorities. I acknowledge, however, that intent is not the only measure of accountability. I now understand fully that it was my duty — and mine alone — to verify every part of the submission before placing it before Your Honour.
After learning of the issue at the hearing, I took immediate steps to investigate, and I have since withdrawn the defective factum and prepared and served a corrected version with verified legal authorities.
In addition, I have implemented new protocols in my practice to ensure that:
Every legal authority is independently confirmed through CanLII or Westlaw;
No AI-generated content will be relied on without rigorous manual review;
I will no longer delegate legal research to tools I cannot control or verify personally.
This was a serious lapse in judgment. It does not reflect the standard of diligence and care I have always tried to uphold in my practice, nor does it reflect my respect for this Court.
I am grateful for the opportunity to appear and make this statement. I respectfully ask the Court to accept this explanation, and my commitment that such an error will never occur again.
Thank you, Your Honour.
Jisuh Lee
Based on the steps taken by the lawyer and the "notoriety as a result of the widespread publication of reports concerning the show cause order in both the legal and the general press" the judge dismissed the charges against her on terms.
The reasons of the judge are a cogent reminder to all lawyers about the need to carefully vet submissions made to courts that rely on generative AI tools. As the Judge noted, the failure to do so can violate a lawyer's duties to the court, professional duties regulated by the Law Society, and the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, which among other things requires lawyers to include a statement in every factum that the lawyer is satisfied about the authenticity of every authority cited in the factum.
The reasons of Judge Myers extracted below speak for themselves.
[9] I take judicial notice of the fact that Ms. Lee has gained notoriety as a result of the widespread publication of reports concerning the show cause order in both the legal and the general press.
[10] For the reasons set out below, in my view, this proceeding has already accomplished all the purposes of addressing contempt in the face of the court at a show cause hearing. The goals already met, in my opinion, include: maintaining the dignity of the court and the fairness of civil justice system, promoting honourable behaviour by counsel before the court, denouncing serious misconduct, deterring similar future misconduct by the legal profession, the public generally, and by Ms. Lee specifically, and rehabilitation.
[11] Ms. Lee has already adequately purged any possible contempt of court that could be found.
[12] Therefore, on the conditions ordered below on consent of Ms. Lee, I withdraw the show cause order and deem it satisfied.
[14] Irrespective of issues concerning artificial intelligence, counsel who misrepresent the law, submit fake case precedents, or who utterly misrepresent the holdings of cases cited as precedents, violate their duties to the court.
[15] I agree with Masuhara J. in Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285 (CanLII):
Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
[16] A court decision that is based on fake laws would be an outrageous miscarriage of justice to the parties and would reflect very poorly on the court and the civil justice system.
[17] In determining and pronouncing the law applicable to its decisions, the court receives submissions from counsel concerning the applicable law. As discussed below, the court relies on counsel to state the law accurately and fairly. Misrepresentation of the law by a lawyer poses real risks of causing a miscarriage of justice that undermines the dignity of the court and the fairness of the civil justice system.
[18] In my prior endorsement, I listed several duties that may be violated by a lawyer delivering a factum and making oral submissions relying on fake cases and mis-citing cases for propositions that have nothing to do with the actual issues and holdings of the cases. For clarity however, it seems to me useful to note that some of the duties that I listed are not necessarily duties owed to the court.
[19] The Law Society of Ontario remains the regulator of licenced lawyers and paralegals in Ontario. The Law Society regulates the professional duties of lawyers in addition to their duties to the court.
[20] Were this matter proceeding to a show case hearing, I would have first particularized for Ms. Lee that the court's concern was with misrepresentation of the law to the court. The organizational cause of what occurred in Ms. Lee's law firm is not the court's real concern in my view. In my view, issues concerning a lawyer's duties of technological competency and staff supervision, for example, are better dealt with by the Law Society.
[21] In a court proceeding however, the proverbial buck stops with counsel. All counsel (and not just senior counsel on the file) bear responsibility for the accuracy of their submissions and for any misrepresentations they may make by signing, delivering, and relying on fake or false legal precedents and arguments.
[22] Counsel may not mis-state or misrepresent the law to the court whether by way of AI hallucinations or by any other means.
[28] In addition to the issues set out in the endorsement, it seemed to me to be necessary and appropriate to provide notice to Ms. Lee about two further issues.
[29] First, her factum failed to comply with Rule 4.06.1 (2.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990 Reg 194. The rule requires:
(2.1) A factum shall include a statement signed by the party's lawyer, or on the lawyer's behalf by someone the lawyer has specifically authorized, certifying that the person signing the statement is satisfied as to the authenticity of every authority cited in the factum. O. Reg. 384/24, s. 1.
[30] Rule 4.06.1 (2.1) was enacted in 2024. It codifies part of the existing duties of counsel to cite law honestly and without misrepresentation.
[31] Although the court system is Ontario is adversarial, lawyers are bound by duties to protect the fairness of the process for all. As part of their professional duties, counsel are required to cite the law fairly. Despite lawyers' roles as zealous advocates, as noted previously, they may not misrepresent the law. They are positively required to advise the court of precedents that stand in opposition to their clients' positions even if they have not been mentioned by the opposing counsel.
[32] Although these bedrock ethical rules are taught to lawyers throughout their training, the Civil Rules Committee felt it necessary to create a special rule to address the new phenomenon of AI hallucinations.
[33] As cases such as Zhang v Chen and this case demonstrate, AI is ubiquitous and yet its risks and weaknesses are not yet universally understood. Therefore Rule 4.06.1 (2.1) was enacted specifically to remind counsel of their obligation to check the cases cited in their legal briefs to ensure they are authentic. The need for lawyers to include a certificate in their factums declaring that the cases cited as precedents in the factum are real was hoped to bring home to all lawyers the need to check and not to trust factums generated by AI or by others.
[34] Ms. Lee's factum did not include the certification required by Rule 4.06.1 (2.1). By leaving out the mandatory certification, counsel may have sidestepped the process designed specifically to avoid the issue that arose here.
[35] I did not mention Ms. Lee's failure to comply with this rule in my initial decision. Therefore, I wanted to ensure that Ms. Lee received notice of the issue at the scheduling conference.
[36] In addition, and apart from a contempt citation, another rule had potential application and required the court to give notice to Ms. Lee. Rules 57.07 (1)(a) and (b) provide:
57.07 (1) Where a lawyer for a party has caused costs to be incurred without reasonable cause or to be wasted by undue delay, negligence or other default, the court may make an order,
- a) disallowing costs between the lawyer and client or directing the lawyer to repay to the client money paid on account of costs;
(b) directing the lawyer to reimburse the client for any costs that the client has been ordered to pay to any other party;
[37] Rule 57.07 (2) allows the court to raise this issue on its own initiative provided the court gives notice to counsel and gives her a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in response.
[38] It seems to me that with or without a finding of contempt, one possible remedy for the wrongdoing alleged was to ensure that counsel did not bill her client for the drafting, delivering, and use of the deficient factum...
[57] While this matter proceeded in an unorthodox manner (that is not one I would recommend to anyone facing a contempt citation) I cannot see any purpose in continuing with this contempt proceeding.
[58] Apart from the fact that her "Oral Statement" was delivered in writing for a scheduling conference, her responses are completely appropriate and comprehensive.
[59] Ms. Lee forthrightly acknowledges the fact that her factum was created using ChatGPT and contains fake cases. She acknowledges her failure to verify the cases in her factum. The error was not delegating the factum or using generative AI to assist in drafting the factum. Rather, Ms. Lee's failure arose when she signed, delivered, and used the factum without ensuring that the cases were authentic and supported the legal arguments she was submitting to the court.
[60] Counsel who make submissions to the court in writing or orally are obliged to be satisfied the submissions of law do not misstate the law. In this expression of counsel's duty, it does not really matter if the factum was drafted by AI or a clerk or a student. As noted above, while unquestioning reliance on AI presents a new form of risk of impropriety, it is not the use of AI itself that is the concern. It is difficult to imagine any case in which a barrister ought to sign, serve, and file with a court a submission of law without first satisfying himself or herself that the authorities relied upon exist and support the arguments made.
[61] Ms. Lee's submission quite properly recognizes and deals expressly with her responsibility as fairly stated. Then she proposes steps to correct her practice to guard against committing the same lapse again.
[62] The expressions of accountability and regret, coupled with the withdrawal of the offending factum, purge any contempt of court that might have been found. I likely would not have been inclined to require Ms. Lee to file a new factum. The original motion is finished, and the factum is spent. However, if Ms. Lee feels a new factum is required and appropriate, it should contain the certification required by Rule 4.06.1 (2.1).
[67] In my view, the publicity surrounding this case has served both to publicly denounce inappropriate conduct and as general deterrence to the bar and others who might rely on AI for legal submissions.
[71] In deciding not to proceed with a contempt hearing, it is possible that Ms. Lee escapes some sentencing options. In other cases where counsel have filed briefs containing fake cases from AI in the US, courts have ordered counsel to pay monetary sanctions typically in the range of US$5,000. But US courts have different roles than courts in Canada regarding the regulation of the lawyers who appear before them. They also have the ability to impose sanctions against counsel much more readily than here.
[72] While it is possible that a court might have imposed a small fine on Ms. Lee had she been found in contempt of court, in my view no sentencing principle is being overlooked in declining to incur further court time and counsel time for the possibility of adding a small fine to Ms. Lee's outcome.
[73] There had to be someone who was going to be the first lawyer to file AI hallucinations here. It was likely to be someone so junior as to over-estimate the infallibility of AI, or someone so senior as to not really yet understand its fallibility. Ms. Lee has suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career. The denunciation and deterrent effect produced her immediate and forthright response in a manner far beyond any reasonably expected impact of a small fine.
[74] In contempt of court matters, the court retains a broad discretion concerning the manner of proceeding provided that the alleged contemnor has notice of the process and substantive issues. I therefore dismiss the show cause proceeding on condition that Ms. Lee fulfill her commitment to take Continuing Professional Development courses as described in her written undertaking dated May 13, 2025 and that she not bill Ms. Ko for the research, factum writing, and attendance at the motion held May 1, 2025 (in the event that Ms. Ko receives assets to give her a means to pay for services rendered).
Originally published by barrysookman.com
To view the original article click here
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.
