SA Court Refers Advocate to Legal Council After AI Tool Cites Fake Case Law

A South African court has referred a junior advocate to the Legal Practice Council after the AI tool Legal Genius generated fake case law used in court submissions.

The case involved an urgent application by Northbound Processing to compel the release of a refining license tied to a disputed business deal with Rappa Resources. While the court ultimately ruled in Northbound’s favor, Acting Judge DJ Smit flagged at least four fictitious legal citations in the applicant’s written heads of argument.

The junior counsel admitted to using Legal Genius, an AI tool marketed as being trained on South African law, and took full responsibility for the inclusion of the non-existent cases. He cited time pressure and the absence of the original drafter as contributing factors. Senior counsel Arnold Subel also issued an apology but maintained he trusted the legal team’s competence and only performed a surface review.

“This case highlights the dangers of unverified AI use in legal proceedings,” said Refilwe Motsoeneng, associate at Michalsons Giles Inc. “Even unintentional AI hallucinations can have serious professional consequences.”

This is the third known case in South Africa where generative AI tools were used improperly in court submissions. In 2023, a legal team received a costs order for relying on ChatGPT in a defamation dispute. In 2025, a judge in KwaZulu-Natal flagged multiple fake citations in an appeal filed on behalf of suspended Umvoti Mayor Godfrey Mavundla, describing the behavior as “irresponsible and downright unprofessional.”

Judge Smit emphasized that written heads of argument carry as much weight as oral submissions and endorsed prior rulings requiring legal professionals to independently verify all sources. He invoked Article 16(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which compels judges to report evidence of serious misconduct to professional bodies.

Motsoeneng concluded: “AI is just a tool. It cannot replace proper legal research or the duty of oversight expected of legal professionals.”