SINGAPORE: A civil case has sparked controversy as a lawyer was ordered to pay S$800 (US$620) in personal costs for citing a fictitious legal authority generated by artificial intelligence (AI). This unusual ruling highlights the growing concerns surrounding the accuracy of AI tools in legal practices.
The Case Overview
In this civil case, claimants Tajudin Gulam Rasul and Mohamed Ghouse Tajudin brought action against Suriaya Haja Mohideen, the defendant. Assistant Registrar Tan Yu Qing delivered the judgment on 2 October 2024, emphasising that the citation—whether intentional or not—was “wholly impermissible.”
Details of the Judgment
- The claimants were represented by Lalwani Anil Mangan from DL Law, while Suriaya was defended by Umar Abdullah Mazeli from Adel Law.
- Suriaya had failed to contest the claim, leading to a default judgment against her.
- During the proceedings, it became apparent that a supposedly valid legal case cited by Mr Lalwani was fictitious.
Issues Surrounding AI Use
Ms Tan pointed out that relying on AI without thorough verification can undermine public trust in the legal profession. She stated, “The court will not condone such improper conduct,” stressing the importance of accuracy in legal documentation.
Lawyer’s Defence
During the court hearing, Mr Lalwani admitted that an inexperienced junior lawyer used an AI application which led to the erroneous citation. “I am not here to mislead anybody,” he claimed while asserting that he had taken over after discovering the mistake.
The Broader Implications
This incident serves as a stern reminder for legal professionals—while technology can enhance legal practices, it also comes with limitations. Ms Tan’s judgment sends a strong message that all attorneys bear the responsibility of verifying the outputs of AI tools.
Final Thoughts
The court’s ruling not only addresses the specific case but also reflects a growing trend in the legal industry globally regarding the use of generative AI. As legal proceedings evolve, so must the standards of diligence expected from legal practitioners.