The growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal profession has brought both benefits and risks. Increasingly, legal practitioners are finding themselves in trouble for relying on fictitious case law generated by AI tools.
In a recent High Court judgment, Northbound Processing v SA Diamond Regulator, the court addressed the inappropriate use of AI by legal counsel. Two of the authorities cited in counsel’s heads of argument were found to be entirely fictitious, commonly referred to as “AI hallucinations.” The counsel admitted to using a subscription-based tool called Legal Genius, which claimed to be trained exclusively on South African judgments and legislation. The tool was reportedly used due to time constraints and the urgency of the matter.
The court condemned this conduct and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council, holding that even negligent reliance on AI could amount to serious professional misconduct. The judgment warned of the grave repercussions such conduct may have on the administration of justice.
This follows another High Court ruling in Mavundla v Member of the Executive Council, where counsel cited several non-existent cases based on research conducted by a candidate attorney.
In both cases, the courts emphasised the well-established duty of legal practitioners not to mislead the court, whether intentionally or negligently. This includes the obligation to present an accurate and honest account of the law, which by necessity excludes fictitious or unverified case law.
These decisions serve as a clear warning to legal professionals, that while generative AI may assist with legal research, its outputs must be independently verified against authoritative sources before being used in legal advice or court proceedings.
