Author: Sayeh Hassan, Criminal Defence Lawyer/Charter Litigator
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) by lawyers has rapidly evolved, transforming various aspects of legal practice. AI technologies are increasingly employed for tasks such as legal research, document review, contract analysis, and in some cases writing factums. While there are many advantages to using AI including its ability to quickly analyze vast data sets, identify relevant precedents, and streamline the drafting process, there are also dangers associated with using AI in a careless nonchalant manner.
Concerns About AI Accuracy in Legal Work
There are concerns about the accuracy of AI-generated content, particularly in legal citations, prompting a discussion about the reliability of AI in legal work. Specifically, there have been cases where AI generated non-existent cases and non existent legal arguments, or provided inaccurate summaries of existing cases.
Most recently in Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2766 a lawyer was accused of filing a factum that contained non-existent cases and incorrect summary of existing legal precedents. During oral submissions the lawyer was asked about whether the factum was prepared by AI and she indicated that she did not know and that she would have to check with her office. More concerning, she relied on the non-existent cases and incorrect summaries during her oral submissions, rather than taking a break to check whether the cases infact existed. Ultimately, the judge ordered the lawyer to show cause for potential contempt of court due to the breach of her duty not to mislead the court among other breaches.
Lawyers' Duties in the Use of AI and Technology
When it comes to the use of technology and AI, all lawyers have the following duties toward their clients, the court and the administration of justice:
- To faithfully represent the law to the court.
- Not to fabricate case precedents and not to mis-cite cases for propositions that they do not support.
- To use technology, conduct legal research, and prepare court documents competently.
- To supervise staff and review material prepared for their signature.
- To ensure human review of materials prepared by non-human technology including AI.
- To read cases before submitting them to a court as precedential authorities.
- It is the litigation lawyer’s most fundamental duty not to mislead the court.[1]
As lawyer we are responsible to ensure the material we submit to the court and rely on in oral argument is accurate and not misleading. This involves the old school technique of actually reading the cases we are relying on, and ensuring they say what we claim they do. We must also check all citations for accuracy before finalizing legal documents. This is especially important in case of a factum which is the written form of our oral argument, and something the court will have reviewed prior to the hearing.
It is also important for lawyers to stay informed about technology and continuously educate themselves about the capabilities and limitations of AI technologies. Understanding how these tools work, their potential biases, and industry best practices can help lawyers leverage AI more effectively while mitigating risks.
Consequences of Failing to Use AI Properly
Failing to take these simple, yet crucial steps can have dire consequences, including breach of professional duty which may lead to:
- contempt hearings before the courts, with serious consequences including fines and other sanctions
- Negative impact on the case which may lead to malpractice claims from clients
- Disciplinary action by the law society
- Reputational damage, which may be the most significant consequence of all. A lawyer's professional reputation is crucial for their practice. Inaccuracies arising from improper use of AI can damage credibility and trust with clients, colleagues, and the court. This may result in loss of clients and opportunities, as well as negative perceptions in the legal community.
Overall, adherence to best practices when using AI is essential for maintaining ethical standards, protecting client interests, and preserving the integrity of the legal profession.
[1] Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2766, paras. 15-22
