- within Law Department Performance, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives and Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Property and Law Firm industries
A recent Alberta Court of Appeal case highlights the importance of a lawyer's obligation to responsibly use artificial intelligence in their practice.
In Reddy v Saroya, 2025 ABCA 322, appellate counsel provided written submissions to the Court that incorporated material generated by a large language model ("LLM") AI tool. Some of the AI-generated content proved problematic: the factum included references to cases that do not exist.
While the lawyer explained he engaged a third party to draft the factum, and cited reasons such as being ill, busy, and writing during the holiday season which contributed to a failure to properly review and catch errors, the Court emphasized that a lawyer is ultimately responsible for the contents of the submissions bearing their name, even if parts were drafted by third parties.
In the decision, the appeal court referred to the Alberta Law Society's Code of Conduct and referenced a prior Notice to the Profession from October 2023 that warned litigants to use AI cautiously.
The Court warned that in most cases it will not excuse such conduct. Potential sanctions may include:
- Striking offending submissions
- Awarding costs personally against counsel (possibly on an elevated scale)
- Considering contempt proceedings, or
- Referring counsel to the Law Society for discipline
Counsel have been provided the opportunity to submit a written argument on whether the Court should impose a cost award to be paid by appellant's lead counsel, up to the amount requested by the respondent.
While AI may be a helpful tool that can promote Access to Justice, this case demonstrates the importance of using AI responsibly as a lawyer.
The Law Society of Saskatchewan has released a set of guidelines to help lawyers ensure they are abiding by their ethical obligations when incorporating AI in their practice: Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law.
Reddy v Saroya is a good reminder that while AI is reshaping legal practice, it cannot replace a lawyer's duty of competence, diligence, and integrity. Courts expect submissions to be accurate, verified, and reliable—regardless of the tools used to prepare them.
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.
