Lawyer cites fake legal case generated by AI, ordered to pay $800

A lawyer was ordered to pay $800 in personal costs to the other party for citing a fictitious legal authority that was generated using artificial intelligence during a civil case.

The parties involved were: Claimants Tajudin Gulam Rasul and Mohamed Ghouse Tajudin against Suriaya Haja Mohideen, the defendant, according to the written judgement made available online on Thursday (Oct 2).

Tajudin and Mohamad Ghouse were represented by Lalwani Anil Mangan from DL Law Corporation, while Suriaya was defended by Umar Abdullah Mazeli from Abdel Law LLC.

The use of AI to prepare court documents is not prohibited in Singapore, but all users are responsible for ensuring that all information provided to the court is accurate and relevant.

While the details of the civil case was not available, the written judgement stated that Suriaya had a default judgement set against her for failing to file a notice of intention to contest or contest the claim.

In a written submission filed on June 1, Lalwani cited a purported case, but it was "conspicuously missing" from the claimants’ bundle of authorities filed the next day.

Bundle of authorities refer to the materials that court users intend to rely on during trial. 

"It transpired that the case was fictitious," said Assistant Registrar Tan Yu Qing.

Senior lawyer claims junior lawyer used AI tool 

The assistant registrar said that on June 4, she directed both sides to ensure that all cited authorities were exhibited.

But on July 21, Lalwani filed amended written submissions to replace the fictitious legal authority, which Tan said was done so without seeking consent from the court. 

When asked to provide reasons for doing so, Lalwani claimed that it was "merely to update the document due to typographical errors" without amending the contents.

In a hearing the next day, the defence counsel accepted that the claimants might have intentionally cited the fictitious authority.

However, he said that Lalwani was "downplaying the severity of the matter" and that the error was distinct from a mere typographical error like a misspelt name.

When probed by the court, Lalwani admitted that the fake legal case did not exist.

He claimed that the original work was done by a junior lawyer, and that he had since taken over the matter.

"That was when I realised it was not in existence," Lalwani said. "I am not here to mislead anybody, which is why I went to look at it specifically."

Tan said that she later made a personal costs order against Lalwani due to the citation of the fictitious authority.

During the hearing, the defence counsel said that his client Suriaya ought to be compensated with costs, arguing that unnecessary time and costs were incurred to locate the fictitious authority.

Lalwani argued that after identifying the error, he remedied it “as soon as he could” and updated the court accordingly.

The claimants’ counsel also admitted for the first time that a generative AI tool was used.

Lalwani said: "Quite candidly, the junior lawyer would have run this through an AI app. That’s why this case appeared.

"I am aware that there’s practice directions regarding the use of AI in court matters and certainly that we have to ensure correctness."

He said that the junior lawyer has just been called to the Bar and is fairly new, "that is why I will take responsibility for this".

Lawyer 'improper, unreasonable and negligent'

In her judgement, Tan found Lalwani’s conduct to be "improper, unreasonable and negligent".

She said that a simple search would have revealed that the fictitious authority does not exist — the case name was fabricated and the citation number, while genuine, pertained to an unrelated matter.

The gravest concern, the assistant registrar said, is when Lalwani was less than candid with the court and sought to "downplay the gravity of his improper conduct".

She noted that he had filed amended written submissions to replace the fictitious legal authority without the court's permission.

While this may appear to be the counsel’s prompt remedy, his "lack of candour" in explaining his actions "is instead indicative of his attempt to conceal his improper conduct", said Tan, adding that he initially characterised it as a mere "clerical" or "typographical" error.

Correction note: An earlier version of the article stated that Lalwani had filed amended written submissions to replace the fictitious legal authority with the court's permission. This is incorrect and has been amended.

[[nid:722506]]

chingshijie@asiaone.com