Australian advocate apologizes in court for fake AI quotes

In Australia, a royal advocate apologized to a judge for submitting documents in a criminal case against a teenager accused of murder that contained fabricated quotes and non-existent court decisions generated by artificial intelligence.

The incident occurred in the Supreme Court of Victoria, according to the Associated Press.

As it turned out, the documents submitted to the court contained fabricated quotes from a speech in the state legislature and non-existent references to cases allegedly heard by the Supreme Court. The errors were discovered by the judge's assistants. They could not find the cases mentioned and asked the defense attorneys to provide copies.

After checking, the advocates admitted that the references did not exist and that the submission contained fabricated quotes.

The advocates explained that they had only checked the authenticity of the first sources and mistakenly assumed that the others were also correct. It is noteworthy that the documents were also sent to the prosecutor, who also failed to check their authenticity.

The errors caused by the use of AI resulted in a 24-hour delay in the conclusion of the case. However, the court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, acquitting him on the grounds of mental disorder.

«We deeply regret and are ashamed of what has happened», - advocate Rishi Natwani told Judge James Elliott on behalf of the defense team.

The judge expressed his dissatisfaction with the situation. «Without minimizing the importance of this case, the way in which these events unfolded is unsatisfactory, - he said. - The ability of the court to rely on the accuracy of the arguments presented by the defense is fundamental to the proper administration of justice». Elliott also added that the Supreme Court in 2024 published guidelines on the use of AI by advocates.

«It is unacceptable to use artificial intelligence if the results of its application have not been independently and thoroughly verified», - the judge said.

In May, an American judge imposed a $31,000 fine on two law firms for submitting a document to the court with fabricated legal references and citations created using AI tools. And in June, a judge of the High Court of England and Wales warned that submitting false materials under the guise of genuine ones could be considered contempt of court or, in «the most egregious cases», obstruction of justice, punishable by life imprisonment.