Legal bodies have warned against “irresponsible” use of AI in court papers, flagging it could lead to disbarment of lawyers in the future after two judgments found lawyers cited “non-existing case laws” and essentially misled the court.
“If you make submissions in court and have not verified correctness thereof then you are misleading the court. That is one of the biggest sins you could ever commit as a legal practitioner. Disbarment will be considered in future,” Legal Practice Council (LPC) deputy chair Llewelyn Curlewis told Business Day.
There have been two judgments delivered recently in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal in which lawyers cited fake case laws.
Judges in both matters, Mavundlela v MEC: department of co-operative government & traditional affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v SA Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, reported the legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council.
Curlewis said AI was a global phenomenon that courts could not avoid, but lawyers could not use it recklessly and mislead the court — whether intentional or not.
“It is a serious concern not only for the LPC but also for our judges and magistrates. The moment you slip in AI to save time and because you are too lazy to go and fact check on citations, then we have a problem. That means the court cannot rely on the practitioners appearing in front of them to get to a just result in a matter,” he said.
“I have no doubt the LPC will take zero-tolerance as far as that is concerned.”
He said lawyers who have been reported might not be disbarred but repeated offence in the future could trigger disbarring.
“Disbarment will be considered in future; it might not be the first point of departure. They might get sanctions and warnings. But if this is a tendency and a transgressor has done it before, then I am sure disbarment will not be too far in the future because it would be gross misconduct.”
Black Lawyers Association (BLA) president Nkosana Mvundlela concurred with Curlewis that disbarring would not be the first point of discipline.
“We must call on the LPC to take such practices very seriously. Repeated offence would constitute unethical behaviour that cannot be condoned. It means that person is not correctable and as a result puts the legal profession into disrepute,” Mvundlela said.
Johannesburg Attorneys Association (JAA) chair Azhar Aziz-Ismail, commenting on behalf of the Law Society of SA (LSSA), concurred AI should be used responsibly, ethically and always in support of, never as a substitute for, professional legal judgment.
“The LSSA’s position is clear: legal practitioners must treat AI as an assistant, not an authority. Every output from an AI tool must be verified for accuracy and existence before being incorporated into legal submissions.
“The integrity of the justice system depends on the honesty and diligence of its officers, and AI should only be used to enhance, not undermine, these values,” he said.
On implications lawyers should face for misleading court, Aziz-Ismail said while each case should be considered on its own merits, ultimately, the profession must uphold the highest standards to maintain public trust in the legal system.
“The LSSA is deeply aware of the profound effect that negative judicial criticism can have on young legal practitioners at the start of their careers.
“Being named in a judgment for submitting AI-generated, non-existent citations can cause lasting reputational harm and limit future career opportunities. However, the LSSA also sees this as a vital learning moment.
“Young practitioners must understand that technology, no matter how advanced, does not replace the fundamental duties of honesty, due diligence and verification.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.