AI-generated court documents lead to $5,000 fine after Quebec Superior Court finds fabricated citations
AI-generated court documents have landed a Quebec man in trouble after a Superior Court judge ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine for submitting false, AI-fabricated legal materials.
A Quebec Superior Court judge found that Jean Laprade improperly relied on artificial intelligence to prepare his own legal defence in a dispute involving a business deal over an aircraft.
AI-generated court documents submitted in business dispute
Laprade used artificial intelligence to prepare his legal defence in a case involving a dispute over a business deal in which he claimed an airplane had been awarded to him.
According to the Superior Court decision, Laprade received three helicopters and an airplane as part of a business deal in Guinea. However, the contract mistakenly awarded him a far more valuable aircraft than what had been agreed upon.
Laprade took possession of the airplane, which is currently under a seizure order at the Sherbrooke airport in Quebec, and has fought efforts by two aviation companies to recover it.
Quebec Superior Court reviews arbitration ruling
Laprade asked the Quebec court to overturn a 2021 decision by the Paris International Arbitration Chamber. That ruling ordered him to pay $2.7 million in compensation to the two aviation companies for loss of use of the airplane and required that the aircraft be returned.
As part of his defence, Laprade submitted numerous legal citations, court decisions, and references to support his case.
Court finds AI-generated court documents were fabricated
The court found that much of the material Laprade submitted had been entirely fabricated by artificial intelligence. The citations and references did not exist, and many of the legal authorities he relied on were false.
The Quebec Superior Court upheld the arbitrator’s original decision and imposed an additional $5,000 fine for the improper use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings.
Judge emphasizes responsibility when using AI in court
Justice Luc Morin acknowledged that artificial intelligence is “here to stay” and stated that the court is not opposed to its use. However, he emphasized that litigants remain fully responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the documents they submit.
“While the court is sensitive to the fact that Mr. Laprade’s intention was to defend himself to the best of his abilities using artificial intelligence, his conduct remains highly reprehensible,” Morin wrote.
The decision cited eight instances of non-existent citations, decisions not rendered, references without purpose and inconsistent conclusions.
Morin added that a generous interpretation suggested Laprade wasted the time of the court and opposing counsel, while a more severe interpretation could have concluded he knowingly attempted to mislead the court.
Get In Touch Today
AI tools can be useful, but as this case shows, courts expect anything filed to be accurate, verifiable, and properly supported. If you have questions about court documents, litigation strategy, or how to use technology responsibly in a legal dispute, the team at Clark Woods LLP can help.
