conduct issues that arose in that matter given the increased use of AI tools by legal practitioners in litigation.
33 The circumstances of the present matter raise similar issues to those in Dayal.
34 The Court accepts that the ALR genuinely regrets his conduct. He acknowledged that the provision of false case citations and quotes alleged to be from the Tribunal's decision was in breach of his duty to his client and to the Court. The Court accepts that the conduct will not be repeated and that the ALR has undertaken to further his knowledge and understanding of the risks of using generative AI tools.
35 The Court accepts that the ALR, as soon as becoming aware of the non-existent case citations and Tribunal quotes in the submissions, took steps to provide amended submissions. However, by the time this occurred, the Court and the Associates had already spent a considerable amount of time attempting to locate the cases and enquiring as to whether the correct Tribunal decision had been filed with the Court. The Minister had also prepared their submissions in reply and filed them. As a consequence of the ALR's conduct, the matter could not conveniently proceed, and further timetabling was required to facilitate the proper filing of an amended application and submissions on behalf of the applicant. The ALR's conduct created unnecessary additional work for the Court and the Minister. The ALR acknowledged the inconvenience to the Court (and the Minister) caused by his conduct and was apologetic.
36 The Court accepts that the ALR is deeply embarrassed by his conduct, and it is certainly not the Court's intention to embarrass him any further by referring the conduct to the OLSC. The Court has anonymised the name of the ALR to protect his identity. If the Court refers the conduct to the OLSC, a preliminary assessment will be undertaken to ascertain whether any further action or investigation is warranted. In making its assessment, the OLSC will take into account the ALR's experience as a legal practitioner, his advancing age, his significant health issues, and the regret and remorse he has expressed for his conduct. Consideration of these factors and whether they mitigate the ALR's conduct will of course be a matter for the OLSC.
37 There is a strong public interest in referring this conduct to the regulatory authority in NSW given the increased use of generative AI tools by legal practitioners. The use of generative AI in legal proceedings is a live and evolving issue. While the Supreme Court of NSW has
