Integrity in Legal Practice: Lessons from Ko v. Li and Reaffirmation of our Commitment at Lerners

In a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Justice Myers delivered a powerful caution to the legal profession regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal research and document preparation. The case, Ko v. Li, not only addressed complex issues of family and estate law but also highlighted a growing concern in the legal community: the risk of lawyers relying on AI-generated materials without proper human oversight. At Lerners, we believe it is essential to discuss this issue openly, reassure our clients and the public, and reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the highest standards of legal practice.

What Happened in Ko v. Li?

The case of Ko v. Li involved a dispute over the validity of a divorce and subsequent claims against an estate. However, what drew particular attention were not just the legal issues at stake, but the conduct of one of the lawyers involved. During the hearing, Justice Myers discovered that the factum, a written legal argument submitted by counsel for the applicant, contained references to legal cases that either did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. Some hyperlinks led to unrelated cases, while others resulted in error messages. When questioned, the lawyer could not provide the correct citations or copies of the cases.

Justice Myers suspected that the factum may have been prepared using generative AI, such as ChatGPT, and that the lawyer had not verified the accuracy of the AI’s output before submitting it to the Court. This led to a stern warning from the Court about the dangers of relying on AI without proper human review and the fundamental duties lawyers owe to the court, their clients, and the administration of justice.

Justice Myers’ Caution: The Duties of Lawyers in the Age of AI

Justice Myers’ endorsement is a timely reminder of the core responsibilities of legal professionals. He emphasized several key duties:

• Duty to Faithfully Represent the Law: Lawyers must ensure that the legal authorities they cite are accurate and genuinely support their arguments.

• Duty Not to Fabricate or Mis-cite Cases: Submitting non-existent cases or misrepresenting the content of real cases is a serious breach of professional ethics.

• Duty to Use Technology Competently: While technology can be a valuable tool, it must be used with care and competence. Lawyers must supervise the use of AI and ensure that all materials prepared for court are thoroughly reviewed by a human.

• Duty Not to Mislead the Court: Perhaps most importantly, lawyers must never mislead the court, whether intentionally or through negligence.

Justice Myers made it clear that submitting AI-generated hallucinations — fabricated or inaccurate legal authorities — can amount to an abuse of process and, in some cases, even contempt of court. He referenced similar incidents in other jurisdictions and underscored the need for the legal profession to adapt quickly and responsibly to the challenges posed by new technologies.

Reassurance from Lerners: Our Approach to AI and Legal Research

At Lerners, we understand that the legal landscape is evolving rapidly, and we are committed to embracing technology in ways that enhance, rather than undermine, the quality of our work. We want to reassure our clients and the public that we do not use AI in any manner that would compromise the integrity of our legal submissions or the trust placed in us.

Our approach is guided by the following principles:

• Human Oversight is Paramount: Any use of technology, including AI, in our research or drafting processes is always subject to rigorous human review. Our lawyers personally verify all legal authorities and ensure that every submission to the court is accurate, reliable, and ethically sound.

• Commitment to Professional Standards: We adhere strictly to the rules of professional conduct and the duties outlined by the courts. Our lawyers are trained to use technology competently and responsibly, and never as a substitute for their own expertise and judgment.

• Transparency and Accountability: We are transparent with our clients about our methods and processes. If we ever identify an error, we act swiftly to correct it and inform all relevant parties.

• Continuous Education: The legal profession is changing, and so are we. Our team regularly participates in training and professional development to stay abreast of technological advancements and their implications for legal practice.

Why This Matters to You

For clients and members of the public, the integrity of the legal process is paramount. You deserve to know that your lawyers are not only knowledgeable and skilled but also trustworthy and ethical. The caution issued by Justice Myers serves as a reminder that, while technology can offer many benefits, it must never replace the careful, conscientious work of a dedicated legal professional.

At Lerners, we are proud of our reputation of excellence and integrity. We use technology to support our work; not to shortcut it. Our clients can be confident that every legal argument we make is grounded in real law, thoroughly researched, and personally verified by our experienced team.

Conclusion

The Ko v. Li decision is a wake-up call for the legal profession, but it is also an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the values that have always defined great lawyering: honesty, diligence, and respect for the court. At Lerners, we pledge to uphold these values in everything we do, ensuring that our clients receive the highest standard of legal service — now and in the future.