Lawyer ordered to pay client’s opponent $800 after discovery of fake case created by AI

 A lawyer has been ordered to pay $800 to his client’s opponent in a civil suit after a non-existent case generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) tool was found in his court documents.

Mr Lalwani Anil Mangan of DL Law Corporation said the non-existent case was originally cited by his junior lawyer, who would have run the case through an AI app.

In an 11-page judgment on Sept 29, Assistant Registrar Tan Yu Qing said such improper conduct causes valuable judicial time to be lost and unnecessary expenditure of resources.

Ms Tan added: “His actions may, in the eyes of the public, cast a shadow over the legitimacy and honour of the legal profession and its role as a custodian of justice in Singapore.”

Mr Lalwani represented claimants Tajudin Gulam Rasul and Mohamed Ghouse Tajudin in their civil suit against Ms Suriaya Haja Mohideen, who was represented by Mr Umar Abdullah Mazeli of Adel Law LLC.

The judgment did not detail much about the civil proceedings, but said the defendant, Ms Suriaya, had applied to set aside a default judgment entered against her for failing to file a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim.

Lawyers for the claimants filed written submissions on June 1 citing a purported case to support one of their legal arguments.

‘I should have checked’

On July 18, lawyers for the defendant e-mailed counsel for the claimants and said they were unable to find the cited case. Three days later, counsel for the claimants filed amended written submissions, where the case was replaced.

The lawyers claimed the amendments were merely to update the document due to typographical and clerical errors, and because a case was “inadvertently cited”.

When probed by the court, Mr Lalwani admitted the case in fact did not exist. He claimed the original work was done by a junior lawyer, and he realised the error when he took over the matter.

He said: “I am aware of (the) requirement that the case has to be correct. I am not here to mislead anybody, which is why I went to look at it specifically. The original work that was done by my junior has some errors.”

Though Ms Suriaya’s application was eventually dismissed, which meant she had to pay the claimants, the parties considered whether a separate personal costs order ought to be made against Mr Lalwani.

Mr Umar said they had incurred unnecessary time and costs in attempting to find the non-existent case. He added this was the first time he had encountered such a situation.

Mr Lalwani argued that though the case did not exist, the legal proposition that he had sought to rely on existed.

He said after he identified the error, he remedied it as soon as he could and updated the court.

Improper, unreasonable, negligent

Ms Tan, presiding over the matter, said a simple search on a legal research portal would have revealed the case did not exist. The case name was fabricated, and while the citation number was genuine, it was linked to a wholly unrelated matter.

She called Mr Lalwani’s explanations “troubling”, and noted that he was less than candid with the court and sought to downplay the gravity of his improper conduct.

Ms Tan said that as the senior lawyer on file, Mr Lalwani had a duty to supervise the work of his junior colleague, and called his conduct improper, unreasonable and negligent.

In Singapore, lawyers and self-represented persons are allowed to use generative AI tools in preparing their court documents, but must abide by a relevant guide issued in 2024. The guide explains that such tools are unable to discern facts and are not designed to function as search engines. While its outputs may sound persuasive, there is a risk they are inaccurate or fabricated.

Court users must independently verify that all materials placed before the court exist and are accurate, said Ms Tan.

Both Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and High Court judge Aidan Xu have also addressed the impact of AI on the legal fraternity, with Justice Xu noting in an August speech that advocates and solicitors “should know better” than to tender fictitious case citations.

Ms Tan said lawyers must recognise that while technological tools may enhance the practice of law, these tools also have their inherent limitations.

She added: “This incident serves as a solemn reminder that every advocate and solicitor bears a personal responsibility to comply with his or her professional duties.”

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen [2025] SGHCR 33

ADV: <Newly published> Division of Matrimonial Assets in Singapore: An Empirical Study Chief Justice upholds decision to deny bail to Indonesian fugitive fighting extradition from S’pore