TLDR: A Melbourne-based law firm, Massar Briggs Law, has been ordered to pay costs by the Federal Court of Australia after a junior solicitor submitted court documents containing fake and incorrectly cited references produced by a generative AI tool. The incident, which occurred during a native title determination case, highlighted the critical need for rigorous verification of AI-generated legal research.
Melbourne, Australia – A recent ruling by the Federal Court of Australia has brought to light a significant issue concerning the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice, as Melbourne-based firm Massar Briggs Law was ordered to pay costs for submitting documents with fabricated and erroneous citations. The judgment, delivered by Justice Bernard Murphy in April and published on July 2, stemmed from a native title determination case where the firm acted for the applicant.
The incident involved an inexperienced junior solicitor at Massar Briggs Law who, while working remotely, prepared footnotes for a summary of the applicant and its decision-making process. Lacking access to the firm’s physical or electronic document copies, the solicitor utilized Google Scholar’s search tool to generate the citations. This practice led to the inclusion of several references that either did not exist or were incorrectly cited.
The discrepancies were uncovered by First Nations Legal and Research Services (FNLRS), which was tasked with producing a footnoted document based on the firm’s submission. After conducting ‘extensive searches’ of its database, FNLRS concluded that ‘most of the cited documents did not exist, and that others existed but were incorrectly cited.’ When FNLRS raised concerns about potential AI fabrication, the junior solicitor attempted to recreate the citations using Google Scholar but received different results, unable to explain the discrepancy. She apologized to the parties and the court for her error, noting she had not encountered such issues during her university studies where she regularly used Google Scholar.
Justice Bernard Murphy emphasized the growing prevalence of generative AI in the legal profession and underscored the necessity for ‘proper scrutiny and checks’ to counteract the ‘growing problem’ of false citations. He stated, ‘It is critical that legal practitioners use proper safeguards to verify the accuracy of the work product.’ While acknowledging the utility of AI tools, Justice Murphy stressed that their use must be balanced with robust verification processes.
Also Read:
- MyPillow CEO’s Attorneys Penalized for Submitting AI-Generated False Citations in Defamation Case
- Australians’ AI Hesitancy Rooted in Trust, Security, and Environmental Concerns
Both the junior solicitor and Massar Briggs Law’s principal solicitor, Jason Briggs, submitted affidavits to the court regarding the matter. Mr. Briggs admitted to an ‘oversight error’ in allowing collaborative work to be performed remotely without ensuring proper checks on the junior solicitor’s work. He expressed regret for the inconvenience caused to the parties and the court. Despite the serious nature of the error, Justice Murphy did not deem the conduct severe enough to refer the junior solicitor to the Victorian Legal Services Board, noting her apology and the firm’s acknowledgment of the oversight. The case was initially reported by Lawyers Weekly.
