A law firm has been left with legal egg on its face - and the possibility of facing a Legal Practice Council (LPC) investigation – for allegedly using ‘Google and artificial intelligence (AI) to source what were non-existent legal citations in court proceedings, reports GroundUp.

Pietermaritzburg-based Surendra Singh and Associates has also been ordered to pay the costs, from its own coffers, of two court hearings in September last year during which KZN Pietermaritzburg High Court (Pietermaritzburg) judge Elsja-Marie Bezuidenhout interrogated its court documents and references to case law.

From submissions and her own research the judge concluded that 'while the real source of the authorities quoted remain unknown’, it was likely that the firm had relied on AI technology which was ‘irresponsible and downright unprofessional’.

Bezuidenhout referred her ruling to the LPC.

The law firm was representing controversial KZN politician Godfrey Mvundla who was elected Mayor of Umvoti last year but was then suspended, a decision he claimed had been taken at an ‘unlawful meeting’ of the council.

While Mvundla secured an interim interdict against the Umvoti Local Municipality, Bezuidenhout ultimately discharged the interdict and rescinded the order.

Mvundla then applied for leave to appeal against her ruling. In this application his lawyers cited various ‘case authorities’ to support their submissions that Bezuidenhout had been wrong in law in some of her findings.

In her judgment refusing leave to appeal, which was handed down on yesterday, Bezuidenhout said Mavundla’s counsel, Ms S Pillay (who was briefed by the law firm) had, in written submissions and argument, referred to several cases.

Bezuidenhout said that initially one in particular had concerned her. She could find no such case in any of the official law reports. She asked two law researchers at the court to peruse the notice of appeal and to provide her with information of all the cited cases, according to GroundUp.

‘Of the nine cases referred to and cited, only two could be found to exist, albeit that the citation of one was incorrect,’ the judge said. ‘I had serious concerns,' she said.

She asked Pillay to provide her with copies of the cases. Pillay responded that she had been provided with the references by an 'articled clerk' and that she had not had sight of the cases as she was 'overbooked' and under a lot of pressure.

It then came to light that the notice of appeal had been drafted by the clerk.

Bezuidenhout directed that the clerk come to court to explain herself.

‘She duly appeared before me and explained that she had obtained the cases from law journals by doing research through her so-called Unisa portal. I asked her which law journals specifically and she could not respond. I asked her if she had by any chance used an artificial intelligence application such as ChatGPT but she denied having done so,’ Bezuidenhout said.

She said she had ‘serious doubts’ about the correctness and truthfulness of the clerk’s contention.

Judgment

Full GroundUp report