Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 MAY 2025

AI Legal Ethics: The Case Of Ko v Li

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

In a prior blog post, AI Hallucinations Lawyers: Understanding the Risks: Ko v Li, I summarized the folly of a Toronto lawyer who was reprimanded by an Ontario judge for citing non-existent cases in a legal brief.

CanadaTechnology

In a prior blog post, AI Hallucinations Lawyers: Understanding the Risks: Ko v Li, I summarized the folly of a Toronto lawyer who was reprimanded by an Ontario judge for citing non-existent cases in a legal brief. The court ordered the lawyer to face a contempt of court hearing. The judge in the case just released a follow up decision, Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965, after the lawyer admitted the facts, apologized to the court, and proposed positive steps to address her ethical breaches.

Prior to the scheduling conference for the contempt motion, the lawyer delivered to the court a letter in which she explained that her factum had been prepared by her staff in part with the use of the ChatGPT platform. The errant cases were AI hallucinations. She also delivered a letter to the court in which she undertook to complete no fewer than six hours of Continuing Professional Development training in legal ethics and technology including addressing specifically the professional use

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from