AI-Generated Fake Case Law Lands South African Lawyer Under Investigation and Sparks Courtroom Reckoning

Finance AI Blunder in Court: Fake Case Law Lands Junior Lawyer Before Legal Council

A South African junior advocate has been referred to the Legal Practice Council after submitting written court arguments containing fictitious case law generated by an artificial intelligence tool. The incident arose during a dispute over a licence connected to the sale of Rappa Resources to Northbound Processing, marking one of the country's most notable legal episodes involving generative AI misuse.

Northbound Processing urgently requested the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator to release a refining licence, citing severe commercial losses without it. Although the court ruled in Northbound’s favour, Acting Judge DJ Smit found multiple non-existent case citations in the legal submissions and referred the matter to regulatory authorities.

“Written heads of argument carry equal weight as oral submissions and are often more heavily relied upon by judges,” Judge Smit noted. This underlines the critical importance of accuracy in all written legal documents.

Junior Counsel Admits to Using AI Tool

The junior advocate acknowledged using Legal Genius, an AI tool promoted as trained on South African case law. The errors were attributed to time constraints and the absence of a colleague who initially drafted the document. The junior counsel apologised unreservedly and took full responsibility, emphasizing there was no intention to mislead the court.

Senior counsel Arnold Subel also issued an apology, admitting he had only performed a cursory check of the document and assumed the legal propositions were established and reliable.

Broader Warnings About AI in Legal Practice

Refilwe Motsoeneng, associate at Michalsons Giles Inc, highlighted the risks of relying on unverified AI-generated content in legal proceedings. She stressed the ethical duty to independently verify all legal sources before citation, as even unintentional AI “hallucinations” can cause reputational damage and lead to professional misconduct complaints.

“AI cannot replace proper legal research or professional oversight,” Motsoeneng said. Courts expect high standards, particularly in urgent matters where written submissions heavily influence decisions.

Part of a Growing Pattern in South African Courts

This case marks the third known instance in South Africa where large language models introduced false legal citations in court filings. In 2023, legal representatives citing fictitious ChatGPT authorities faced punitive cost orders. In 2025, Judge Elsje-Marie Bezuidenhout described a similar incident as “irresponsible and downright unprofessional,” referring the matter to the Legal Practice Council.

Judge Smit referenced Article 16(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to report serious professional misconduct or gross incompetence to relevant authorities.

Clarifying the Legal Principle in Focus

Beyond the AI issues, the court confirmed a key regulatory principle: once a licence is issued and communicated by a regulator, it cannot be withheld without following proper legal procedures.

“Unless a decision is formally challenged and set aside by court, it remains valid and must be acted upon,” noted Motsoeneng. This principle is vital for businesses reliant on government licences or approvals.

This case serves as a clear warning for legal professionals using generative AI in litigation. It stresses the need for thorough verification of sources and maintaining professional responsibility when incorporating digital tools in legal practice.

For legal practitioners interested in understanding the responsible use of AI tools in law, exploring dedicated courses on AI and legal technology can provide valuable guidance. Visit Complete AI Training for options tailored to legal professionals.