A federal court judge came down hard on a West Australian lawyer for not “fully comprehending” what was required of him prior to handing in written submissions generated by artificial intelligence.
An unnamed lawyer was referred to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia for submitting court documents that contained four citations that either could not be identified or did not appear to correlate with the relevant principles his client’s case relied on.
In addition to providing a full reimbursement to his client, the lawyer was ordered to personally pay costs in the total sum of $8,371.30.
Judge Arran Gerrard of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) said the case demonstrated the “inherent dangers with practitioners solely relying on the use of artificial intelligence in preparation of court documents”.
The false citations came to the court’s attention in June 2025 when it was sent amended written submissions and an email chain between the lawyer and the respondent’s solicitors.
At the following directions hearing, the lawyer claimed to have researched the false cases through the internet, books and articles, but he “must have made a mistake in applying them to his submissions”.
The court was not satisfied with this explanation.
In an affidavit filed later that month, the lawyer admitted to developing an “overconfidence in relying on AI tools and failed to adequately verify the generated results”. He also claimed to have an “incorrect assumption” the results would be “inherently reliable”.
The lawyer set out measures that had been undertaken to prevent the conduct in future and offered an unreserved apology.
Judge Gerrard said it was not the lawyer’s reliance on generative artificial intelligence that was the issue in the present case, but rather the placing before the court of false authorities.
The judge said the court was particularly troubled by the lawyer’s simplistic statement about how he understands he should have verified the citations were accurate via established legal databases.
“Whilst that is obviously important, the court is concerned that the lawyer does not fully comprehend what was required of him. It is not sufficient to simply check that the cases cited were not fictitious,” the judge said.
Legal practitioners are expected to ensure authorities for the principles they rely on have not been overturned or distinguished by a higher court and are considered in respect to how and why the principles are relevant to the factual matrix of the case, he added.
“Legal principles are not simply slogans which can be affixed to submissions without context or analysis,” Judge Gerrard said.
If undiscovered, Judge Gerrard said there was potential for the court to be “embarrassed” and the administration of justice risked being compromised. The prevalence of false citation also “wastes the time and resources of opposing parties and the court”.
“Finally, there is damage to the reputation of the profession when clients of practitioners can genuinely feel aggrieved that they have paid for professional legal representation but received only the benefit of an amateurish and perfunctory online search,” he said.
The case: JNE24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
