{"id":6477,"date":"2025-11-03T16:58:05","date_gmt":"2025-11-03T06:28:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.orderoo.com.au\/blog\/?p=6477"},"modified":"2025-11-03T16:58:57","modified_gmt":"2025-11-03T06:28:57","slug":"robot-lawyers-not-so-fast-victorias-ai-legal-blunder-explained","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.orderoo.com.au\/blog\/robot-lawyers-not-so-fast-victorias-ai-legal-blunder-explained\/","title":{"rendered":"Robot Lawyers? Not So Fast \u2014 Victoria\u2019s\u202fAI Legal Blunder Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Artificial intelligence<\/a> (AI) has been making huge waves across many professions, and the legal world is no exception. But as the recent events in Victoria show, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s ready to replace lawyers\u2014or even be trusted without human oversight. Here’s what\u2019s really going on in the courts, why it matters, and what it means going forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

What Happened?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In Victoria, the use of generative AI in legal practice has gone from theoretical to real\u2014and problematic. According to the Legal Services Board of Victoria<\/a>, two serious incidents in the past year involved AI-generated errors in court documents. One lawyer had his practising certificate restricted, while a law firm was ordered to pay costs after submitting documents containing false case citations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one high-profile case, a senior counsel filed submissions in the Supreme Court of Victoria related to a murder trial that contained non-existent case law and fabricated quotes\u2014both generated by the AI tool used. The judge described the situation as “unsatisfactory” and emphasised the court\u2019s reliance on accurate submissions, according to reporting by ABC News<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More broadly, research from the University of New South Wales (UNSW)<\/a> revealed over 80 reported cases where generative AI was used in Australian courts by self-represented litigants\u2014and increasingly by lawyers too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Why This Matters<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Judgment, Accuracy and Trust Are on the Line<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Courts operate on the basis that submissions, affidavits, case citations and legal arguments are accurate and truthful. When AI fabricates references or quotes (sometimes called “hallucinations<\/a>“), it undermines foundational trust. As per the Supreme Court of Victoria\u2019s guidelines, any AI-generated text must be checked to avoid factual or legal errors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Efficiency vs. Risk Paradox<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

AI promises efficiency in tasks like legal research and drafting. But if its outputs require extensive human verification due to possible errors, the promised efficiency gains may evaporate. As the Victorian Law Reform Commission notes, inaccuracies might appear credible while still being wrong\u2014a dangerous combination in a legal setting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Access to Justice and Equality Concerns<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

On the positive side, AI tools could support self-represented litigants or smaller law firms. However, UNSW research shows most AI-related mistakes come from users without legal training\u2014potentially worsening outcomes for those most in need of support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professional and Ethical Obligations Remain<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Lawyers using AI are still bound by professional duties: confidentiality, competence, accuracy, and candour. As per the Supreme Court\u2019s guidance, legal practitioners must understand how the AI works, verify its outputs, and ensure courts are not misled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

What the Law and Courts in Victoria Are Doing About It<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court of Victoria has released “Guidelines for Responsible Use of AI in Litigation<\/a>,” setting clear expectations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n