The use of artificial intelligence in the legal profession

In LYJ v Occupational Therapy Board of Australia [2025] QCAT 96, Ms LYJ submitted that denying a stay would establish a dangerous precedent, where practitioners in high-demand service regions are forced to cease or restrict practice based on contested regulatory decisions before their appeal rights have been full exercised. To support this part of her submissions, Ms LYJ referred to Crime and Misconduct Commission v Chapman [2007] QCA 283, a case which does not exist.

[21] […] ChatGPT told me broadly:

(a) Where the case could be found. As I have already noted, it does not exist in any of those locations, which are databases of Australian and Queensland cases and legislation;

(b) By way of overview that the case is a significant case decided in the Queensland Court of Appeal, revolving around whether a stay should be granted for the suspension of a solicitor’s ability to practise law and that it is a case which highlights key issues relating to administrative law, procedural fairness and the balance of convenience when determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal;

(c) The Crime and Misconduct Commission had decided to suspend Mr Chapman’s ability to practise law, based on certain alleged misconduct;

(d) Mr Chapman sought a stay, arguing it would cause significant harm to him professionally and personally as it would prevent him from earning a livelihood and effectively practising law whilst his appeal was pending. It would also impact the interests of his clients as they would no longer have access to his legal services.

[22] This information is wrong: the case does not exist.

In Murray v Victoria [2025] FCA 731, a junior solicitor from Massar Briggs Law used Google Scholar to generate citations in native title documents. Many references were incorrect or non-existent. The Federal Court ordered the firm to personally pay the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis, describing a “growing problem regarding false citations in documents prepared using AI.”

[14] Here, the applicant's solicitor's use of AI in the preparation of two court documents has given rise to cost, inconvenience and delay to the parties and has compromised the effectiveness of the administration of justice. But I do not consider the use of AI in this case means that it is appropriate to refer the solicitors' conduct to the Victorian Legal Services Board. Here an inexperienced junior solicitor was given the task of preparing document citations for an amended pleading, and did so while working remotely and without access to the documents to be cited. In attempting to cite the relevant documents she used an (apparently AI-assisted) research tool which she considered had produced accurate citations when she previously used it. And as soon as Massar Briggs Law was told of the false citations the problem was addressed. The junior solicitor and the principal solicitor have apologised or expressed their regret to the other parties and the Court, and there was no suggestion that they were not genuine in doing so.

[15] The junior solicitor took insufficient care in using Googe Scholar as the source of document citations in court documents, and in failing to check the citations against the physical and electronic copies of the cited documents that were held at Massar Briggs Law's office. The error was centrally one of failing to check and verify the output of the search tool, which was contributed to by the inexperience of the junior solicitor and the failure of Mr Briggs to have systems in place to ensure that her work was appropriately supervised and checked. To censure those errors it is sufficient that these reasons be published.

In Mertz &Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222, a solicitor used AI in the preparation of the originally filed Summary of Argument and List of Authorities. While she denied using AI herself, she conceded that a paralegal had used AI to prepare the original documents without her knowledge. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia rejected the excuse. This decision reiterated that practitioners must remain accountable for accuracy, regardless of whether they delegate tasks.

[17] Other Courts, including this one, are considering what guidelines and practice directions to issue, but the following are abundantly clear:

(1) If AI is used to identify authorities for the purposes of any Court document, then it is incumbent on the author and those accepting responsibility for the document to verify that those authorities are both accurate and relevant to the proceedings. Each of the relevant legal practitioners conceded that they had not done so in respect of the original Summary of Argument and List of Authorities.

(2) Where AI is used more widely, such as to prepare the text of submissions, create footnotes or prepare a chronology, the same responsibility to ensure that the material is accurate and relevant arises.

(3) As the submissions of King's Counsel and counsel in this matter acknowledge, the use of AI in the preparation of Summaries of Argument or other submissions does not absolve the author or person who accepts responsibility for the documents from any of their professional or ethical obligations to the Court or the administration of justice. To the contrary, it calls for careful interrogation of whether such use is appropriate, what disclosure is appropriate, and what safeguards must attend to its use.