23 The ALR referred to the Practice Note regarding Generative AI issued by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 21 November 2024, which he said post-dated his submissions. The ALR said if he had access to the Practice Note at the time he drafted the submissions, he would not have incorporated the material generated by AI. The ALR expressed his commitment to upholding the highest standards of practice.
24 In his written submissions, the ALR repeated much of what he had said in his affidavit about his professional background and health issues. The ALR provided details of a spinal surgical procedure that he must undergo in the near future and said he wished to diligently complete his obligations to his clients prior to his hospitalisation.
25 In seeking to explain the reason for emailing the amended submissions to my Chambers without the consent of (or copying in) the Minister's lawyers, the ALR said that this was due to time constraints and that he was simply following the advice of my Chambers (in an earlier email) which requested all future correspondence relating to the matter be sent to the Associate's email address. The ALR explained that it was not his intention to circumvent the established protocols and that if his interpretation of the advice in the email from my Associate was mistaken then he deeply regrets his actions. The Court accepts that the ALR did not deliberately intend to exclude his opponent from communication with the Court and that the oversight likely arose from his lack of familiarity with litigation procedure and the Conduct Rules.
26 The ALR sought the Court's leniency having regard to his long-standing service (of 27 years) to the legal profession, his current health difficulties and his advancing age. He said the prospect of facing formal repercussions weighed heavily on him, particularly as he prepares for major surgery which may impact his ability to practice law.
27 At the hearing, counsel for the ALR referred the Court to the Guide on use of Generative AI Tools by Court Users issued by the Supreme Court of Singapore, which provides a helpful explanation of how generative AI tools work. Counsel submitted that these tools provided a seductive output tailored to the user's prompts and that the ALR was seduced by these fake cases or 'hallucinations' produced by AI.
28 Counsel submitted that the ALR was at the end of his legal career and had experienced a range of health issues that deteriorated or affected his performance. Counsel implored the
