AI Privilege Considered in US v Heppner; New UKIPO Findings take UK Suspected or Confirmed Hallucinations to 43

Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary…
Professional website of Matthew Lee (Barrister, England & Wales). Ad/Marketing communication not legal advice. No Public/Direct Access. Instructions via clerks see contact details below.
Professional website of Matthew Lee (Barrister, England & Wales). Ad/Marketing communication not legal advice. No Public/Direct Access. Instructions via clerks see contact details below.

Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary…

Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary…

“...We attach no blame to him, since he is a litigant in person but we have recorded the names so that others do not fall into the same trap...”

"The Court also finds troubling [Lawyer's] failure to identify or bring the non-existent case citations to the Court's attention before the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration. The Court should not be left as the last line of defense against citations to fictional cases in briefs filed with the court. While [Lawyer] did not create or rely on the fake citations, he also did not detect them. Instead, he admitted he did not review the cases cited by his opponent...."

Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary…

"93. In further submissions, the Representative said 'The suggestion that citing a published authority amounts to providing false material is misconceived. A court decision is a matter of public record. Whether a case applies is a matter of legal argument and opinion, not misrepresentation. It is entirely proper for parties to put forward different interpretations for the Tribunal to consider. To characterise this as "false material" is both unfounded and inappropriate.' It is not clear who the representative is quoting as saying false material was used. The wording used by HMRC was 'inaccurate use of AI/inaccurate authorities'.

As I was catching up on recent international decisions in the developing field of AI and the law, I found myself drawn to two in particular, one from the United States and one from Australia. I initially considered writing about each decision separately. In the end, I felt that reading them together offered a more helpful way of exploring three issues that I have been reflecting on for some time and which I hope will also be of practical interest to readers navigating similar questions.