Australian lawyers submit AI-generated fake citations in murder trial

Australian lawyers Rishi Nathwani and Amelia Beech were caught submitting AI-generated documents riddled with fabricated citations and misquoted speeches in a murder case involving a 16-year-old defendant. The incident forced a Melbourne Supreme Court judge to intervene after the prosecution unknowingly built arguments based on the AI-generated misinformation, highlighting how artificial intelligence hallucinations can cascade through the legal system with potentially devastating consequences.

What happened: The defense team used generative AI to create court documents that contained multiple fabricated references and errors, which went undetected by prosecutors who used the false information to develop their own arguments.
• When confronted in court, the lawyers admitted to using AI to generate the documents.
• The defense resubmitted “revised” documents that contained additional AI-generated errors, including completely nonexistent laws.
• Justice James Elliott ultimately caught the discrepancies and called out the legal team’s conduct.

The stakes: This case involved serious criminal charges where accuracy in legal documentation could determine the outcome of a murder trial.
• The 16-year-old defendant was accused of murdering a 41-year-old woman during an attempted car theft.
• The teen was ultimately found not guilty of murder on grounds of cognitive impairment at the time of the killing.
• Elliott warned that AI use “without careful oversight of counsel would seriously undermine this court’s ability to deliver justice.”

What the judge said: Justice James Elliott delivered sharp criticism of the lawyers’ approach to AI integration in legal work.
• “It is not acceptable for AI to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,” Elliott told Melbourne’s Supreme Court.
• He described “the manner in which these events have unfolded is unsatisfactory.”
• The judge expressed concern that AI-generated misinformation could “mislead” the legal system.

Why this matters: The incident demonstrates how AI hallucinations can create a domino effect throughout legal proceedings, with fabricated information potentially altering the course of justice.
• Real judicial decisions could be made based on “the nonsensical musings of a hallucinating AI.”
• The case adds to a growing list of legal professionals caught using AI tools without proper verification.
• It underscores the critical need for oversight when deploying AI in high-stakes professional environments where accuracy is paramount.