The most read Vietnamese newspaper
Edition: International | Vietnamese
© Copyright 1997 VnExpress.net. All rights reserved.
Get VnExpress first in Google Search
See more of the news you trust. Make VnExpress a preferred source to prioritise our updates in your Google search results
According to a judgment released on March 6, the lawyers were identified as Goh Peck San and Amarjit Singh Sidhu, who were involved in preparing closing submissions for a civil lawsuit.
The issue emerged after lawyers representing the opposing side discovered that the submissions cited two cases that did not exist and raised the matter with the court.
The court found that the two cited cases were fabricated. One combined the name of a real case with the citation of a different one, while the other had an entirely fictitious name and citation, Channel News Asia reported.
Goh admitted the fictitious authorities had been provided by Sidhu, who had been instructed to assist with research and drafting of the submissions. Sidhu said the initial research and draft submissions were prepared by a paralegal who has since left the firm, adding that he was unaware whether any artificial intelligence tools had been used.
He said he had reviewed the draft submissions but had "honestly overlooked" the fake cases before transmitting them to Goh.
Justice S Mohan said the issue appeared consistent with errors sometimes produced by generative artificial intelligence systems, though neither lawyer confirmed whether such tools had been used.
He said this demonstrated a "sheer lack of diligence displayed" and ruled that Sidhu was primarily responsible for introducing the fictitious authorities, while Goh "entirely failed" in his duty to verify them.
Sidhu had proposed paying S$1,500 in personal costs and offered to bear Goh’s share, but the court rejected the amount as inadequate and instead ordered each lawyer to pay S$5,000.
Mohan said he hoped the ruling would remind Singapore lawyers of the importance of verifying the accuracy of all materials submitted to the court and understanding the proper use of generative AI tools.
He added that such misconduct could lead to disciplinary action in the future and lawyers cannot claim ignorance because the risks of misusing AI tools are already well established.
