Victorian Legal Board Warns Against AI Misuse in Courts

Published Date : 03/11/2025 

The Victorian Legal Services Board has issued a warning to lawyers about the misuse of AI in court, citing instances of fabricated case citations and misleading documents. 

An increasing number of court cases are being disrupted by the use of artificial intelligence, which is providing false case citations. In the past year in Victoria, one solicitor's practising conditions were changed, and a law firm was ordered to pay costs in another matter, after using AI to produce court documents, which returned errors.

Family law specialist Caroline Counsel, who is also chair of family law at the Victorian Law Institute, told the Mornings program on ABC Radio that AI was making its way into courtrooms in Victoria, with some problematic results. 'Unfortunately, people sort of think AI is the genie that's going to solve all the problems, but in actual fact it's like a really keen intern that wants to please,' she said. 'So, if you ask it something and don't ask how it got to that conclusion, it could spit out what they call hallucinations — something that looks like a case, smells like a case and might even have a judge's name in it that's familiar to you — but the rest of it is just made up.'

AI has grabbed national headlines recently, with the ABC revealing more than a dozen universities in Australia were using AI to catch out students believed to be using AI in assessments, and getting it wrong. The ABC has also highlighted issues facing Australian Community Media through its use of Google's Gemini model in regional newsrooms, with some staff raising concerns about the legal advice being offered by the AI system.

The law industry's watchdog, the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, has been forced to call out the misuse of AI tools such as generative AI — which creates content in response to user prompts — to prepare court documents. Federal Court documents show in August last year, solicitor Mr Dayal — a pseudonym given to him by the court — submitted a list and summary of legal authorities that did not exist and admitted not checking either for accuracy. In that case, Mr Dayal told the court he would 'take the lessons learned to heart and will not commit any such further breach of professional standards in the future.' Mr Dayal was referred by the court to the industry's watchdog for a review of his conduct.

In August this year, the Victorian Legal Services Board varied Mr Dayal's practising certificate so he could no longer practise as a principal lawyer or handle trust money, and required him to undertake supervised legal practice for a period of two years. And the case of Mr Dayal was not the only one. In July this year, Federal Court judge Bernard Murphy found it was not appropriate to refer a law firm to the Victorian Legal Services Board after an 'inexperienced junior solicitor' used AI to prepare citations in legal documents for a native title claim. That case found the junior solicitor had used Google Scholar's search tool to produce a list of citations, but then, when she attempted to replicate her search methods, Google Scholar returned different results. Court documents show the junior solicitor apologised to the parties and to the court for her error, and the law firm she worked for was ordered to pay costs. Justice Murphy said it was likely that the false document citations came from using generative AI, which had the capacity to 'fabricate' or 'hallucinate' information.

In its latest risk outlook, the Office of the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner identified the improper use of AI as a key risk. 'Unlike a professionally trained lawyer, AI can't exercise superior judgement or provide ethical and confidential services,' a spokesperson said. The Supreme Court of Victoria and County Court of Victoria have established guidelines on the use of AI by lawyers, while the Victorian Legal Services Board has joined its counterparts in Western Australia and New South Wales to publish a statement on the use of AI in Australia's legal practice. Ms Counsel said the courts 'were trying to put the genie back in the bottle' as they grappled with lawyers using AI technology to prepare court documents. 'It's basically saying, 'Hey, look, you can't just use this randomly, and you can't generate footnotes or citations because we know that AI has this capacity to hallucinate, and you can't actually generate witness statements affidavits using AI,' Ms Counsel said. The board said cases where lawyers had misled the court by tendering false citations generated by AI were increasingly the focus of regulators. It said if the misuse of AI was proven, it might take disciplinary action by reprimanding the lawyer or ordering further education. The board said it would consider prosecuting a matter before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal if the misuse amounted to professional misconduct. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS): 

Q: What is the main concern with AI in courtrooms?

A: The main concern is that AI can generate false case citations and misleading documents, which can disrupt court proceedings and lead to professional misconduct.

Q: What actions has the Victorian Legal Services Board taken against AI misuse?

A: The board has issued guidelines and warnings, and in some cases, has varied practising certificates or ordered law firms to pay costs.

Q: What is a 'hallucination' in the context of AI in court?

A: A 'hallucination' refers to AI-generated content that appears credible but is entirely fabricated, such as false case citations or non-existent legal authorities.

Q: How are courts addressing the issue of AI misuse?

A: Courts are establishing guidelines and guidelines on the use of AI by lawyers and are increasingly focusing on cases where AI has been misused to mislead the court.

Q: What are the potential consequences for lawyers who misuse AI?

A: Potential consequences include disciplinary action, reprimands, further education requirements, and even prosecution before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. 

More Related Topics :