Insights Header image
Insights Header image
Insights Header image

Phantom Footnotes: First Canadian Court Issues Direction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions

June 28, 2023 Litigation Bulletin 3 minute read

Since the launch of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence chatbot, in November 2022, businesses and educational institutes have grappled with the use of artificial intelligence. While privacy and confidentiality concerns have been at the forefront of discussions, there is increasing awareness of the chatbot’s affinity for inventing sources, references and citations.

Last Friday, June 23, 2023, in the first of its kind in Canada, the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba issued a practice direction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions:

With the still novel but rapid development of artificial intelligence, it is apparent that artificial intelligence might be used in court submissions.  While it is impossible at this time to completely and accurately predict how artificial intelligence may develop or how to exactly define the responsible use of artificial intelligence in court cases, there are legitimate concerns about the reliability and accuracy of the information generated from the use of artificial intelligence.  To address these concerns, when artificial intelligence has been used in the preparation of materials filed with the court, the materials must indicate how artificial intelligence was used.[1]

(emphasis added)

The issuance of this practice direction follows a now widely reported incident in the United States, in which the District Court of the Southern District of New York was recently “presented with an unprecedented circumstance” – the use of artificial intelligence in court submissions which contained “citations to non-existent cases”.[2] The Court noted that “[s]ix of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations”.[3] The Court required the lawyer to “show cause” as to why “he ought not to be sanctioned.”[4]

On June 22, 2023, following the “show-cause” hearing, the District Court released a scathing decision sanctioning counsel and his law firm, holding that “[a]n attempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system”[5] and making a finding of bad faith:

In researching and drafting court submissions, good lawyers appropriately obtain assistance from junior lawyers, law students, contract lawyers, legal encyclopedias and databases such as Westlaw and LexisNexis. Technological advances are commonplace and there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. But existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings. [The Respondents] abandoned their responsibilities when they submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT, then continued to stand by the fake opinions after judicial orders called their existence into question.[6]

Given the public’s increasing awareness of ChatGPT’s propensity to fabricate information, it is not surprising that a Canadian court has now issued a practice direction to counsel on the use of artificial intelligence. While the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba does not explicitly prohibit the use of artificial intelligence in preparing court submissions, it does require lawyers to indicate how artificial intelligence was used in preparation of materials.

We anticipate that other Canadian courts will quickly follow suit, implementing similar practice directions.

[1] Practice Direction re Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions dated June 23, 2023.
[2] Order to Show Cause dated May 4, 2023.
[3] Order to Show Cause dated May 4, 2023.
[4] Order to Show Cause dated May 4, 2023.
[5] Opinion and Order on Sanctions dated June 22, 2023.
[6] Opinion and Order on Sanctions dated June 22, 2023.

by Carina Chiu and Komal Jatoi

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2023

Insights (5 Posts)View More

Featured Insight

Nothing Casual about it: Hotel Faces Employees’ Class Action over Employment Benefit Changes

Hotel faces employees' class action over employment benefit changes.

Read More
Sep 29, 2023
Featured Insight

“Mend your speech a little, lest it may mar your fortunes”: Are Employee Defamation Cases A Fool’s Errand?

This bulletin discusses the recent decision in Williams v. Vac Developments Limited regarding gag defamation proceedings commenced by employers.

Read More
Sep 27, 2023
Featured Insight

Overholding in Commercial Leasing

The concept of overholding is often misunderstood and deserves more attention in commercial leases, given the significant consequences for landlords and tenants.

Read More
Sep 27, 2023
Featured Insight

Competition Act Amendments on a Rocket Docket

Bill C-56 introduces amendments to the Competition Act, which are described as addressing rising grocery prices, but which have much broader implications.

Read More
Sep 26, 2023
Featured Insight

A Shopping Cart of Competition Law Changes

The Government announced amendments to the Competition Act as part of its announcement regarding combatting escalating grocery prices.

Read More
Sep 18, 2023