AI is a wonderful tool that can help lawyers with their practices. We may even soon reach the point where it would be professional negligence not to use AI in some ways for providing legal services. But, while AI is powerful, it sometimes hallucinates. While these episodes are decreasing as the AI matures it still occurs. It is not surprising that law societies and courts across the country have issued guidelines for when lawyers use AI and that courts sanction lawyers for violating their professional responsibilities when citing non-existing cases to court. The recent case Ko v Li 2025 ONSC 2766, illustrates the risk to lawyers in not taking prudent measures to mitigate against risks of hallucinations in citing caselaw that does not exists in court documents. In this case, the lawyer is facing a contempt of court sanction. I can do no better than reproduce in full the endorsement of Meyers J. in the case.
I. The Applicant’s Factum – Possibly Artificial Intelligence Hallucinations?
[2] Counsel for the applicant, Jisuh Lee of ML Lawyers, delivered a factum for the motion. The factum is dated April 25, 2025. Ms. Lee signed the factum electronically under the phrase “All of which is respectfully submitted.”
[5] The hyperlink under Alum v Shah directs the reader to the CanLII.org website to the case of Gatoto v. 5GC Inc., 2023 ONSC 1772 (CanLII). That case deals with a commercial real estate problem. It has nothing to with the submission about Rule 25 (19) that is the subject of the narrative submission. [6] The hyperlink under the DaCosta case submitted by Ms. Lee takes one to the common internet error message:These circumstances meet the threshold of duress, mistake, and procedural irregularity justifying the exercise of the Court’s discretion under Rule 25(19). See Alam v. Shah, 2023 ONSC 1772 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc1772/2023ons c1772.html
DaCosta v. DaCosta, 2010 ONSC 2178 –
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc2178/2010ons c2178.html
[7] During her oral submissions, Ms. Lee referred me to these cases to support her client’s arguments. When the hyperlinks did not take me to the cases cited, I searched the CanLII website to try to find the cases. I could not find them. [8] I asked Ms. Lee if her factum was prepared by artificial intelligence – like ChatGPT. She told me that her office does not usually do so but that she would have to check with her clerk. Ms. Lee was unable to provide me with citations to the cases cited in her factum or to provide me with copies of the cases from the printed papers she was using to make her submissions. [9] I advised the parties that this was a significant issue that I would deal with later. [10] After the hearing, I reviewed the factum again. Another issue on the motion was a request by Ms. Lee’s client to remove an estate trustee. In a paragraph in the middle of page A172 on Case Center (page 5 of 9 of the factum PDF) Ms. Lee submits the following:404 Error – Page not found
Dear user,
CanLII cannot find the page you requested.
[11] The first case cited, Johnson, is a case in which the court was asked to remove estate trustees. Ms. Lee submits that, “the court removed a trustee for failing to account and for conduct that eroded the beneficiaries’ confidence.” In fact, the opposite is true. The court did not remove the estate trustees. At paras 38 and 39, Pattillo J. held:In Johnson v. Lanka, 2010 ONSC 4124 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4124/2010ons c4124.html
the court removed a trustee for failing to account and for conduct that eroded the beneficiaries’ confidence. Similarly, in Meschino Estate v. Meschino, 1998 CanLII 14734 (ON SC) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1998/1998canlii14734/1998c anlii14734.html the court removed a trustee for non-disclosure and unilateral dealings with estate assets.
[38] In my view, there is an absence of clear evidence of necessity requiring the respondents’ removal. None of the acts complained of endanger the welfare of the beneficiaries or the future administration of the Estate.[12] The judge went on to penalize the moving party with substantial indemnity costs for making unfounded claims of wrongdoing against the estate trustees. [13] The hyperlink for the other case cited in this paragraph of the factum, Meschino Estate, directs the reader to the CanLII.org website to the case of Antonacci v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada, 1998 CanLII 14734 (ON SC). Antonacci is a trial decision in a wrongful dismissal case.
[39] For the above reasons, therefore, the applications are dismissed.
It had nothing to do with the removal of a trustee “for non-disclosure and unilateral dealings with estate assets” as submitted by Ms. Lee in the factum. I was unable to find a Meschino Estate case on the CanLII.org website.
[14] This occurrence seems similar to cases in which people have had factums drafted by generative artificial intelligence applications (like ChatGPT). Some of these applications have been found to sometimes create fake legal citations that have been dubbed “hallucinations.” It appears that Ms. Lee’s factum may have been created by AI and that before filing the factum and relying on it in court, she might not have checked to make sure the cases were real or supported the propositions of law which she submitted to the court in writing and then again orally. [15] All lawyers have duties to the court, to their clients, and to the administration of justice. [16] It is the lawyer’s duty to faithfully represent the law to the court. [17] It is the lawyer’s duty not to fabricate case precedents and not to miscite cases for propositions that they do not support. [18] It is the lawyer’s duty to use technology, conduct legal research, and prepare court documents competently. [19] It is the lawyer’s duty to supervise staff and review material prepared for her signature. [20] It is the lawyer’s duty to ensure human review of materials prepared by non-human technology such as generative artificial intelligence. [21] It should go without saying that it is the lawyer’s duty to read cases before submitting them to a court as precedential authorities. At its barest minimum, it is the lawyer’s duty not to submit case authorities that do not exist or that stand for the opposite of the lawyer’s submission. [22] It is the litigation lawyer’s most fundamental duty not to mislead the court. [23] In Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285 (CanLII) Masuhara J. dealt with a similar issue. Masuhara J. held:[24] In that case, the lawyer caught her mistake before the hearing, apologized to all, and withdrew her factum. Here, counsel actively relied on two of the suspicious cases as part of her submissions in open court. In the few days that have past since the oral hearing, I have not received any communication from Ms. Lee explaining, correcting her factum, or otherwise acknowledging an issue. [25] I do not know the full facts yet. There are cases that are not available on the CanLII.org website. But I have also determined that the three unknown cases discussed above are also not found on any of Westlaw, Quicklaw, or Google. Perhaps wrong hyperlinks were given for cases. Perhaps AI was not used to create the factum and these are not examples of hallucinations. Perhaps counsel misunderstood Johnson. [26] The court must quickly and firmly make clear that, regardless of technology, lawyers cannot rely on non-existent authorities or cases that say the opposite of what is submitted.Citing fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
[27] With the sudden advent of AI, this has quickly become a very important issue. [28] In the US, several cases have been reported in which courts have grappled with issues arising from lawyer’s brief containing AI hallucinations. For a very recent case discussing the problem thoroughly, see: Benjamin v Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:24-cv-7399, 2025 US Dist. LEXIS 78895 (E.D.N.Y Apr. 24, 2025) [29] In R. v. Cohn, 1984 CanLII 43 (ON CA), Goodman JA defined a contempt in the face of the court:
[30] Ms. Lee may have committed grave breaches of her duties that may amount to contempt in the face of the court. [31] I order Ms. Lee to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt. Despite the traditional wording of this notice, Ms. Lee is protected by the presumption of innocence and other procedural rights as discussed by the Court of Appeal in Cohn. She will have a fair opportunity to submit evidence to explain what happened if she wishes to do so. [32] The issue does not involve any personal insult to the court nor any conduct by me. Accordingly, I will deal with this proceeding. I require Ms. Lee or her counsel to attend a scheduling case conference to discuss the process for the hearing. [33] The scheduling conference will be held by Zoom on May 16, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.A contempt in the face of the court may be broadly described as any word spoken or act done in, or in the precincts of, the court which obstructs or interferes with the due administration of justice or is calculated so to do.
2 comments