Introduction
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has firmly stated that legal practitioners cannot shirk responsibility for submitting AI-generated fake citations, fictitious quotations, or non-existent judgments by blaming technology. This assertion was made in response to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the role of artificial intelligence in the legal profession.
Lawyers’ Accountability
The BCI emphasized that lawyers are accountable for every document and argument presented in court, irrespective of the involvement of AI tools in their preparation. As the BCI elaborated, “If a false case, fake quote, or misleading proposition is filed, the advocate cannot avoid accountability by saying that a machine produced it. The machine neither signs the pleading nor owes duties to the court. The advocate does.”
Use of AI in Legal Practice
While acknowledging the utility of AI as an assistive tool in legal research, drafting, summarization, transcription, and document management, the BCI highlighted that AI technology cannot supplant a lawyer’s independent judgment, ethical responsibilities, or accountability to the courts and clients. The Council noted that the use of AI in legal practice is not barred, but stressed the necessity for lawyers to independently verify every statute, precedent, quotation, and legal proposition generated by AI from authoritative sources before using them in court.
Judicial Concerns
There is rising judicial concern about the increasing reliance on AI-generated material containing fabricated authorities, non-existent judgments, and inaccurate legal propositions. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, raised alarms regarding lawyers filing petitions with fake citations and fabricated quotations from AI tools. The Court also highlighted concerns about declining drafting standards, with a growing trend of lengthy submissions replacing concise legal pleadings.
Significant Case Reference
In the case of Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao, the Supreme Court acknowledged allegations that a trial court had relied on AI-generated non-existent judgments. The Court noted that reliance on such fabrications would not only reflect poor decision-making but could also constitute misconduct with legal repercussions.
More Read
Confidentiality and Professional Duties
The BCI warned lawyers of the confidentiality risks associated with the indiscriminate use of AI platforms. Lawyers must adhere to their professional duties and avoid uploading privileged communications, confidential instructions, or sensitive legal strategies onto insecure technological platforms.
Regulatory Framework and Safeguards
The BCI affirmed that the current framework under the Advocates Act, 1961, is well-equipped to address the misuse of AI. Lawyers engaging in activities that result in false citations, fabricated authorities, misleading submissions, breaches of confidentiality, or negligent pleadings may face disciplinary proceedings under Sections 35 and 36 of the Advocates Act. Moreover, the BCI retains the authority to issue guidance and professional standards for AI-assisted legal work as needed.
