decision which do not exist, falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that the applicant in the substantive proceedings was entitled to expect from his legal representative. The conduct also falls short of a legal practitioner's duty to the Court, including the duty to ensure that the Court is not deceived or mislead, even if unintentionally: r 19.1 of the Conduct Rules.
19 After receiving the Minister's submissions, which brought to the attention of the Court the false case citations and quotes, the ALR sent an email to my Associate (without the consent of, or copying in, the Minister's lawyers) enclosing an amended submission without the false case citation and paragraphs from the Tribunal's decision. This conduct, which the Court considers falls short of the standard expected of a legal practitioner, was in contravention of r 22.5 of the Conduct Rules which required the ALR to ensure they do not communicate with the Court concerning matters of substance in connection with the proceedings in the absence of their opponent.
20 In considering whether the ALR's conduct should be referred to the OLSC, the Court has had regard to the evidence of the ALR and to the written and oral submissions made on behalf of the ALR and the Minister.
21 In his affidavit, the ALR expressed his sincere apology to the Court for his conduct, stating he understands that as a solicitor he had a duty to deliver legal services competently, diligently and promptly. He said he also understands that he has a duty to the Court. The ALR accepted he may have breached his obligations and explained that it was the product of inadvertence, that the conduct had never previously occurred and that it would not occur again. The ALR provided details of his professional background which indicates that he has been admitted as a solicitor since 1997. The ALR provided details and supporting evidence of his health issues, which he said affects his concentration and ability to sit for long periods of time.
22 The ALR explained that due to time constraints and his health issues, he decided to use AI, which had been promoted by reputable legal services such as LEAP and Lexis Nexis as being of assistance in legal practices. He accessed the site known as ChatGPT, inserted some words and the site prepared a summary of cases for him. He said the summary read well, so he incorporated the authorities and references into his submissions without checking the details.
