Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 MAY 2025

Market Intelligence Thought Leadership Award Winner

Fake Legal Authorities – AI Hallucination Or Professional Negligence?

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
Contributor
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

UK 2026 Chambers Firm Profile Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) is an international, fully...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

In the recent Canadian case of Ko v Li (2025 ONSC 2766) , the lawyer involved faced contempt of court sanctions for submitting and relying on cases that did not exist.

GlobalTechnology
Glenn Haley
Glenn Haley
Ian Cheng
Ian Cheng

Summary

Artificial intelligence ("AI") has the potential to make significant changes to various aspects of the practice of law. It is possible that many lawyers will incorporate AI in doing legal work, one way or the other and to some degree or other, in the foreseeable future.

However, while AI is a powerful tool at lawyers' disposal, work generated by AI can contain errors, and AI has the potential to "hallucinate", i.e. make up false information or something that does not in fact exist.

In two recent court cases in Canada and the UK, the lawyers submitted to the courts case authorities that did not exist, leading the other side's lawyers and the court to suspect that those cases had been (mis-)generated by the use of AI.

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.

Register for freeORLog in

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.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Preparing For The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework And The Related Amendments To The CRS And AEOI Frameworks In Hong Kong

Hong Kong has introduced sweeping reforms to its automatic exchange of information framework, implementing both the OECD's Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) and an enhanced Common Reporting Standard (CRS 2.0). These changes mandate registration for all reporting financial institutions, impose stringent due diligence requirements on crypto-asset service providers, and expand tax transparency to cover digital money products and crypto-related investment activities.
Hong KongTechnology
Withers LLP
Withers LLP
Article

CRS2.0制度评析——金融资产扩围、离岸架构穿透与全球税收透明新范式

Hong Kong's submission of CRS 2.0 amendment legislation in April 2026 marks a pivotal shift in global tax transparency, expanding coverage to crypto assets and strengthening beneficial ownership identification. How do these systematic upgrades address the structural deficiencies of CRS 1.0, and what challenges remain in achieving effective cross-border tax information exchange?
Hong KongTechnology
Jincheng Tongda & Neal
Jincheng Tongda & Neal
Article

Strengthening Cybersecurity Resilience In The Age Of AI: Key Takeaways From The Hong Kong SFC Circular

The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission has issued new guidance calling on licensed financial firms to strengthen their cybersecurity defenses against AI-enabled cyberattacks, as recorded incidents surge 27% year-over-year. The circular outlines five critical areas requiring immediate review and enhancement, from vulnerability management to incident response protocols, while emphasizing that senior management bears ultimate responsibility for cybersecurity risk in this rapidly evolving threat landsc
Hong KongTechnology
Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown