SINGAPORE: A lawyer who cited a fictitious legal authority produced by generative artificial intelligence (AI) has been ordered by a court to pay S$800 (US$620) in personal costs to the other party in a civil case.
In a judgment made available on Thursday (Oct 2), Assistant Registrar Tan Yu Qing said the citation of a fictitious AI-generated authority to the court, whether intentional or not, "is wholly impermissible".
She said the gravity of such improper conduct by a lawyer does not lie solely in the loss of "valuable judicial time and the unnecessary expenditure of his counterparty's resources in uncovering his actions".
"Even more pernicious is the fissure that he foments in the public’s perception of the legal profession. His actions may, in the eyes of the public, cast a shadow over the legitimacy and honour of the legal profession and its role as a custodian of justice in Singapore," said Ms Tan, adding that the court will not condone such improper conduct.
The case where the fictitious AI case was cited
The judgment did not delve into the particulars of the case, but stated that Ms Suriaya had a default judgment entered against her as she did not file a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim by the two men.
Ms Suriaya then applied to have the default judgment set aside.
Mr Tajudin and Mr Mohamed Ghouse were represented by Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan from DL Law, while Ms Suriaya was defended by Mr Umar Abdullah Mazeli from Adel Law.
In written submissions filed in June 2025, Mr Lalwani cited a purported case, but this was "conspicuously missing" from the claimants' bundle of authorities filed a day later.
It later transpired that this case was fictitious.
The assistant registrar, Ms Tan, said she then directed both sides to ensure that all cited authorities were exhibited.
The lawyer on the opposing side then told counsel for the claimants that he was unable to locate the fictitious authority.
In July 2025, counsel for the claimants filed amended written submissions containing an authority that replaced the fictitious authority, without seeking permission from the court.
Ms Tan then asked counsel for the claimants to identify the amendments made and to provide reasons for them. The claimants' counsel then filed a letter saying that they sincerely regretted not seeking the court's permission, but said the intent was merely to update the document due to typographical errors.
They added that they had also noted "clerical errors" after the defendant's solicitors brought a case citation to their attention, and said there was an error in paragraph numbering and a case which was incorrectly cited.
During a hearing on Jul 22, Mr Lalwani told Ms Tan that he had filed the documents because of issues with paragraph numbering and because opposing counsel had pointed out that there was a case that was "wrongly cited".
The opposing counsel accepted that the counsel for the claimants might have unintentionally cited the fictitious authority.
However, he said the counsel for the claimants was "downplaying the severity of the matter" and emphasised that the error was distinct from a mere typographical error.
When probed by the court, Mr Lalwani said the fictitious authority did not exist. He said the original work was done by a junior lawyer, and that he had taken over the matter.
"That was when I realised it was not (in) existence," he said. "I am aware of requirement that the case has to be correct. I am not here to mislead anybody, which is why I went to look at it specifically. The original work that was done by my junior has some errors."
The court noted the gravity of the conduct of the claimants' counsel and said it was their responsibility to verify the existence of all authorities cited to the court.
Ms Suriaya's application was eventually dismissed after the court considered submissions from both sides. This means that she would be liable for the claimants' costs, as she was the unsuccessful party.
However, Ms Tan made a personal costs order against Mr Lalwani because of the citation of the fictitious authority.
Ms Suriaya's counsel said his client ought to be compensated with costs, as unnecessary time and costs had been incurred in attempting to locate the fictitious authority, taking the first step to alert the claimants' counsel to the issue and informing the court about it.
However, he did not make any submissions on the exact quantum sought, leaving it to the court and saying it was the first time he had encountered such an issue.
Counsel for the claimants acknowledged there was an error in citation that should not have been there but said that though the authority did not exist, the legal proposition existed.
After identifying the error, he amended it as soon as he could and updated the court according.
When asked if a generative AI tool was employed, Mr Lalwani said that, "quite candidly", the junior lawyer would have run this through an AI app and that was why the case appeared.
"I am aware there (are) practice directions regarding the use of AI in court matters and certainly that we have to ensure correctness," said Mr Lalwani.
He identified the junior lawyer at the court's request, but the name was not given in the judgment.
He said the junior lawyer has just been called to the Bar and is fairly new, so he would take responsibility for this.
"Ultimately, I dropped him off from the file for the submissions," said Mr Lalwani.
Ms Tan said the citation of a fictitious AI-generated authority is "lamentably symptomatic of an unsettling global trend of court users placing undue reliance on GenAI tools in preparing court documents, without verifying the accuracy of the AI-generated output".
She said this trend has been observed across many jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.
In Singapore, the court maintains a neutral stance on the use of such tools, but the court user assumes full responsibility for the output.
Ms Tan said it was imperative that the court sends "an unequivocal message" through the imposition of the personal costs order on the lawyer that the citation of fictitious AI-generated authorities, whether intentionally or otherwise, "will not be condoned".
She said the conduct of counsel for the claimants was "improper", "unreasonable" and "negligent".
He cited a fictitious AI-generated authority, when a simple search would have revealed it did not exist. This non-compliance with the guide on how court users should use generative AI amounts to an abuse of court process, said Ms Tan.
Mr Lalwani also failed to exercise due diligence in preparing the case bundle of authorities and was "less than candid" with the court, seeking to "downplay the gravity of his improper conduct".
She said the replacement of the authority might appear to be a prompt remedy of the false citation, but his "lack of candour" in explaining his actions "is instead indicative of his attempt to conceal his improper conduct" as he initially characterised it as a mere "clerical" or "typographical" error.
Mr Lalwani also failed to voluntarily disclose that the fictitious authority was generated by AI, revealing it only upon the court's questioning.
Ms Tan gave no weight to the attribution of the fictitious citation to the error of an alleged junior lawyer.
"Apart from the fact that there was no evidence of the same adduced before me, it must also be underscored that counsel for the claimants, the senior lawyer on the file, had a duty to supervise the work of his junior colleague," she said.
"In closing, advocates and solicitors must recognise that while technological tools may enhance the practice of law, these tools also have their inherent limitations," said Ms Tan.
"This incident serves as a solemn reminder that every advocate and solicitor bears a personal responsibility to comply with his or her professional duties. It is impermissible for an advocate and solicitor to delegate tasks such as conducting legal research and drafting written submissions to GenAI tools, without independently verifying the AI-generated output."
Continue reading...
In a judgment made available on Thursday (Oct 2), Assistant Registrar Tan Yu Qing said the citation of a fictitious AI-generated authority to the court, whether intentional or not, "is wholly impermissible".
She said the gravity of such improper conduct by a lawyer does not lie solely in the loss of "valuable judicial time and the unnecessary expenditure of his counterparty's resources in uncovering his actions".
"Even more pernicious is the fissure that he foments in the public’s perception of the legal profession. His actions may, in the eyes of the public, cast a shadow over the legitimacy and honour of the legal profession and its role as a custodian of justice in Singapore," said Ms Tan, adding that the court will not condone such improper conduct.
The case where the fictitious AI case was cited
The judgment did not delve into the particulars of the case, but stated that Ms Suriaya had a default judgment entered against her as she did not file a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim by the two men.
Ms Suriaya then applied to have the default judgment set aside.
Mr Tajudin and Mr Mohamed Ghouse were represented by Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan from DL Law, while Ms Suriaya was defended by Mr Umar Abdullah Mazeli from Adel Law.
In written submissions filed in June 2025, Mr Lalwani cited a purported case, but this was "conspicuously missing" from the claimants' bundle of authorities filed a day later.
It later transpired that this case was fictitious.
TRACKING DOWN THE ERROR
The assistant registrar, Ms Tan, said she then directed both sides to ensure that all cited authorities were exhibited.
The lawyer on the opposing side then told counsel for the claimants that he was unable to locate the fictitious authority.
In July 2025, counsel for the claimants filed amended written submissions containing an authority that replaced the fictitious authority, without seeking permission from the court.
Ms Tan then asked counsel for the claimants to identify the amendments made and to provide reasons for them. The claimants' counsel then filed a letter saying that they sincerely regretted not seeking the court's permission, but said the intent was merely to update the document due to typographical errors.
They added that they had also noted "clerical errors" after the defendant's solicitors brought a case citation to their attention, and said there was an error in paragraph numbering and a case which was incorrectly cited.
During a hearing on Jul 22, Mr Lalwani told Ms Tan that he had filed the documents because of issues with paragraph numbering and because opposing counsel had pointed out that there was a case that was "wrongly cited".
The opposing counsel accepted that the counsel for the claimants might have unintentionally cited the fictitious authority.
However, he said the counsel for the claimants was "downplaying the severity of the matter" and emphasised that the error was distinct from a mere typographical error.
ORIGINAL WORK PURPORTEDLY DONE BY JUNIOR LAWYER
When probed by the court, Mr Lalwani said the fictitious authority did not exist. He said the original work was done by a junior lawyer, and that he had taken over the matter.
"That was when I realised it was not (in) existence," he said. "I am aware of requirement that the case has to be correct. I am not here to mislead anybody, which is why I went to look at it specifically. The original work that was done by my junior has some errors."
The court noted the gravity of the conduct of the claimants' counsel and said it was their responsibility to verify the existence of all authorities cited to the court.
Ms Suriaya's application was eventually dismissed after the court considered submissions from both sides. This means that she would be liable for the claimants' costs, as she was the unsuccessful party.
However, Ms Tan made a personal costs order against Mr Lalwani because of the citation of the fictitious authority.
Ms Suriaya's counsel said his client ought to be compensated with costs, as unnecessary time and costs had been incurred in attempting to locate the fictitious authority, taking the first step to alert the claimants' counsel to the issue and informing the court about it.
However, he did not make any submissions on the exact quantum sought, leaving it to the court and saying it was the first time he had encountered such an issue.
Counsel for the claimants acknowledged there was an error in citation that should not have been there but said that though the authority did not exist, the legal proposition existed.
After identifying the error, he amended it as soon as he could and updated the court according.
When asked if a generative AI tool was employed, Mr Lalwani said that, "quite candidly", the junior lawyer would have run this through an AI app and that was why the case appeared.
"I am aware there (are) practice directions regarding the use of AI in court matters and certainly that we have to ensure correctness," said Mr Lalwani.
He identified the junior lawyer at the court's request, but the name was not given in the judgment.
He said the junior lawyer has just been called to the Bar and is fairly new, so he would take responsibility for this.
"Ultimately, I dropped him off from the file for the submissions," said Mr Lalwani.
Ms Tan said the citation of a fictitious AI-generated authority is "lamentably symptomatic of an unsettling global trend of court users placing undue reliance on GenAI tools in preparing court documents, without verifying the accuracy of the AI-generated output".
She said this trend has been observed across many jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.
In Singapore, the court maintains a neutral stance on the use of such tools, but the court user assumes full responsibility for the output.
Ms Tan said it was imperative that the court sends "an unequivocal message" through the imposition of the personal costs order on the lawyer that the citation of fictitious AI-generated authorities, whether intentionally or otherwise, "will not be condoned".
CONDUCT WAS IMPROPER, UNREASONABLE AND NEGLIGENT: COURT
She said the conduct of counsel for the claimants was "improper", "unreasonable" and "negligent".
He cited a fictitious AI-generated authority, when a simple search would have revealed it did not exist. This non-compliance with the guide on how court users should use generative AI amounts to an abuse of court process, said Ms Tan.
Mr Lalwani also failed to exercise due diligence in preparing the case bundle of authorities and was "less than candid" with the court, seeking to "downplay the gravity of his improper conduct".
She said the replacement of the authority might appear to be a prompt remedy of the false citation, but his "lack of candour" in explaining his actions "is instead indicative of his attempt to conceal his improper conduct" as he initially characterised it as a mere "clerical" or "typographical" error.
Mr Lalwani also failed to voluntarily disclose that the fictitious authority was generated by AI, revealing it only upon the court's questioning.
Ms Tan gave no weight to the attribution of the fictitious citation to the error of an alleged junior lawyer.
"Apart from the fact that there was no evidence of the same adduced before me, it must also be underscored that counsel for the claimants, the senior lawyer on the file, had a duty to supervise the work of his junior colleague," she said.
"In closing, advocates and solicitors must recognise that while technological tools may enhance the practice of law, these tools also have their inherent limitations," said Ms Tan.
"This incident serves as a solemn reminder that every advocate and solicitor bears a personal responsibility to comply with his or her professional duties. It is impermissible for an advocate and solicitor to delegate tasks such as conducting legal research and drafting written submissions to GenAI tools, without independently verifying the AI-generated output."
Continue reading...