AI Errors Delay Australian Murder Trial Proceedings

• A lawyer in Victoria admitted to submitting fake AI-generated legal citations, prompting judicial concern over AI use in courtrooms.

Misuse of AI Leads to Courtroom Delay

In a recent case before the Supreme Court of Victoria, defense lawyer Rishi Nathwani (pictured) apologized for submitting court documents containing fabricated quotes and fictitious legal citations. The materials, generated by artificial intelligence, caused a 24-hour delay in a murder trial involving a teenage defendant. Justice James Elliott, who presided over the case, expressed dissatisfaction with the incident and emphasized the importance of accurate legal submissions. Ultimately, the court ruled the defendant not guilty due to mental impairment.

The erroneous citations included references to nonexistent Supreme Court judgments and a fabricated speech to the state legislature. These inaccuracies were flagged by the judge’s associates, who were unable to locate the cited cases and requested copies from the defense. Upon review, the legal team admitted the sources did not exist and acknowledged the inclusion of false quotes. Nathwani, holding the title of King’s Counsel, accepted full responsibility on behalf of the defense.

Judicial Response and Broader Implications

Justice Elliott reiterated that the reliability of legal submissions is fundamental to the administration of justice. He noted that artificial intelligence should not be used in legal practice unless its outputs are independently and thoroughly verified. The court had previously issued guidelines on AI usage, underscoring the need for caution and oversight. Prosecutor Daniel Porceddu also received the flawed documents but did not verify their accuracy.

The incident adds to a growing list of AI-related missteps in legal systems worldwide. In 2023, a U.S. federal judge fined two lawyers and a law firm $5,000 for submitting fictitious research generated by ChatGPT. Similar errors appeared in filings by lawyers representing Michael Cohen, who later admitted to using a Google-based tool without understanding its AI capabilities. These cases highlight the risks of relying on generative AI without proper validation.

Legal Standards and Ethical Considerations

The Australian case has prompted renewed scrutiny of how legal professionals incorporate AI into their workflows. While AI tools offer efficiency, they also pose risks when used without adequate safeguards. British High Court Justice Victoria Sharp recently warned that presenting false material as genuine could amount to contempt of court or, in severe cases, perverting the course of justice. Such offenses carry serious penalties, including life imprisonment.

Court documents did not specify which AI system was used by Nathwani’s team. The lawyers explained that they had verified some citations and mistakenly assumed the rest were accurate. This assumption violated professional standards requiring full verification of legal sources. The episode serves as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners navigating the evolving role of AI in their field.