Singapore court fines lawyers for citing fake AI-generated cases

A court in Singapore has ordered two lawyers to pay personal costs after fictitious legal cases were cited in court submissions, raising fresh concerns over the misuse of artificial intelligence in legal practice.

Justice S Mohan of the Singapore High Court directed each lawyer to pay S$5,000 (about US$3,900) after finding that two non-existent authorities were included in written submissions for a civil case.

The lawyers had initially proposed to jointly bear S$1,500 in personal costs. However, the judge rejected the amount, describing it as inadequate given the seriousness of the issue.

The case involved legal action by the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, who sought to recover money allegedly lent to the deceased’s four brothers and their company.

During the proceedings, lawyers representing the claimants discovered that two authorities cited by the defence did not exist. They raised the issue in reply submissions to the court.

Justice Mohan said the episode reflected broader challenges emerging as generative artificial intelligence tools increasingly enter professional practice.

He noted that while technological advances were not unwelcome, their growing use in legal work required a corresponding level of professional responsibility.

The defence lawyer, Goh Peck San, had engaged another solicitor, Amarjit Singh Sidhu, to assist with research and drafting of the closing submissions.

Mr Singh later explained that the initial draft had been prepared by a paralegal who has since left the firm. He said he was unaware whether any AI tools had been used during the preparation of the research.

Court records showed that one of the cited authorities combined the name of a real case with a citation belonging to a different case, effectively creating a reference that did not exist.

The second authority had both a fictitious name and citation.

After the issue was flagged by the claimants, the court asked Mr Goh to respond. He later acknowledged the problem and said the authorities had been supplied by another solicitor.

Mr Singh admitted he had provided the references and accepted that he had overlooked the inaccuracies while reviewing the submissions. He said he had made only minor edits before sending them to Mr Goh.

He later realised that one of the cases could not be found in the LawNet legal database and advised that it should not be relied upon.

Justice Mohan said the incident highlighted a troubling pattern in which lawyers rely on AI-generated information without verifying its accuracy.

He warned that such conduct risks wasting judicial resources and could potentially lead to incorrect rulings if fictitious authorities are relied upon.

While the judge stressed that the use of artificial intelligence tools is not inherently problematic, he said they must remain secondary to the professional judgment and responsibility of lawyers.

Ultimately, he ruled that both lawyers bore responsibility. Mr Singh introduced the fictitious cases, while Mr Goh failed to verify the authorities before presenting them to the court.

Justice Mohan also noted that the absence of the cited cases in the bundle of authorities submitted to the court should have raised clear warning signs.

He ordered both lawyers to pay S$5,000 each in personal costs and ruled that they cannot charge their clients for any work associated with addressing the issue.

In his closing remarks, the judge cautioned members of the legal profession that the duty to verify the authenticity and accuracy of all materials presented in court remains fundamental, even as artificial intelligence tools become more widely used in legal practice.