PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CMC) — A High Court judge in Trinidad and Tobago has condemned the use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated legal authorities by lawyers in a lawsuit, describing it as a serious breach of professional ethics.

“Irresponsible use of internet sources or generative AI tools undermines not only individual cases but also the credibility of the legal system as a whole. If such conduct is not condemned and appropriately addressed, it could lead to a dangerous erosion of the rule of law,” Justice Westmin James said.

The Newsday newspaper said the judge has since referred two attorneys to the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Association (LATT) in what is probably the first case in the country involving the use of AI, resulting in sanctions.

“The court recognises that errors can and do occur, even at the judicial level, as evidenced by the appellate process. However, the submission of fictitious or unverifiable legal authorities, whether sourced from generative AI tools or carelessly obtained from the internet, constitutes a serious breach of professional responsibility.

“Attorneys bear an ethical obligation to ensure that all materials submitted to the court are authentic, properly sourced and reliable. The court must be able to place trust in the representations made by counsel as officers of the court,” Justice James said.

The matter came to light after the attorneys for Nexgen Pathology Services Limited, the claimant in the case, submitted several cases with citations to support their arguments that an employer who funds an employee’s training assumes certain contractual obligations.

However, the judge said the cases cited “lacked proper citations and bore characteristics inconsistent with valid Industrial Court decisions in Trinidad and Tobago”, nor could he verify the existence of the cases.

“These purported cases formed the sole legal foundation for the claimant’s central argument. Had they been legitimate, they would have constituted persuasive authority,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

He said upon investigation, the court discovered that the cited cases bore inconsistent formatting and structures for Industrial Court rulings and that they were styled as disputes between individuals and companies, although only trade unions appear as parties before the Industrial Court in trade disputes.

Justice James also said that the cases were not included in the claimant’s bundle of authorities, although they were heavily relied on in submissions.

The judge requested copies of the authorities, but the claimant’s counsel responded that the cases had been retrieved from an online source that was “no longer accessible”.

The judge was given a screenshot of an error message, and the judge said that the explanation was “wholly unsatisfactory”, adding that “legitimate court judgments do not simply disappear without a trace from all recognised legal databases”.

“Moreover, the absence of these cases from any recognised legal database raises serious questions as to their authenticity.”

In a follow-up response, the attorney attributed the inclusion of the false cases to a junior assistant’s inexperience and acknowledged that the sources were drawn from unverified searches on Google and Google Scholar.

The attorney denied using any AI-generated tools and accepted full responsibility for the oversight, citing heavy caseloads and inadequate supervision for the inclusion of inaccurate and misattributed citations.

But Justice James said, while digital tools, including AI and internet-based platforms, were increasingly common and valuable in legal research, “their use must be accompanied by discernment and subjected to rigorous verification”.

“This is because AI-generated content is susceptible to producing what are commonly referred to as ‘hallucinations’ — fabricated, yet plausible-sounding outputs that may result from gaps or limitations in the model’s underlying data,” said the judge, who acknowledged making use of such tools where appropriate.

“Legal practitioners must not rely on such tools uncritically. Any information obtained through these means must be independently verified before being presented to the court. The court emphasises that citing non-existent cases, even inadvertently, constitutes a serious abuse of process and professionalism.

“It risks misleading the court, prejudicing the opposing party and eroding public confidence in the administration of justice. Counsel are reminded that the duty of candour to the court requires that they verify the authenticity of every case cited.

“If any material has been generated with the assistance of AI or other non-traditional sources, full disclosure to the court is both appropriate and expected,” Justice James said, adding “attorneys bear an ethical obligation to ensure that all materials submitted to the court are authentic, properly sourced, and reliable”.

“It is regrettable that counsel failed to observe relevant guidance, including practice directions issued by the Caribbean Court of Justice and lessons from international jurisdictions, where similar conduct has resulted in disciplinary action against legal practitioners.”

In referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for investigation, the judge said, “This case illustrates that expertise in selecting and utilising research technologies, including those powered by AI, is now essential in modern legal practice.”

“The court reaffirms that the integrity of the justice system relies on diligence, honesty and professional accountability.

“Rest assured: the intelligence of this court is not artificial.”

In his ruling on Nexgen’s lawsuit against its former employee Darceuil Duncan, the judge found that the lab assistant breached her employment contract when she resigned shortly after completing a company-funded programme.

Duncan was ordered to pay Nexgen TT$38,740.17 (One TT dolllar=US$0.16 cents) in damages, plus interest and its legal costs assessed at TT$11,595.