SME Law Disciplinary referral for lawyer caught using AI A Queensland solicitor ignored requests from a senior judge to explain the fake case citation in her client’s written material. March 11, 2026 • By Naomi Neilson Share Share this article on: Facebook X LinkedIn Copy link Link copied! Having had “serious concerns” for her conduct in relation to the potential use of artificial intelligence, Justice Kristen Walker of the Supreme Court of Victoria referred a solicitor to the Legal Services Commissioner for investigation. This content is available exclusively to Lawyers Weekly premium members. Become a Member Log in to your Premium Account Become a Premium Member for unlimited access to exclusive content. INDIVIDUAL Yearly $ 49.00 per year SUBSCRIBE NOW INDIVIDUAL Monthly $ 5.00 per month SUBSCRIBE NOW Learn more about Premium Benefits and other offers Username or Email Password Forgot password? Keep me signed in on this device. If you check this box before you log in, you won’t have to log back into the website next time you return, even if you close your browser and come back later. If you check the box above before you log in, you won’t have to log back into the website next time you return, even if you close your browser and come back later. <div class="alert alert-warning"> JavaScript is required for CAPTCHA verification to submit this form. </div> or Login with a Passkey The solicitor was not named in Justice Walker’s decision, but Dib & Associates Lawyers were listed as the applicant’s representation.     “It is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used by solicitors or barristers in the production of court documents, unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,” Justice Walker said. Justice Walker said she observed that several quotations in the applicant’s material could not be found in the cases they were said to be taken from. There were several authorities that also did not appear to exist. After an associate reviewed the work, Justice Walker concluded seven cases cited were non-existent by reference to the name and citation, and 12 quotations were non-existent – at least in full – in the sense that they could not be located in the case they were said to have been taken from. Her chambers emailed the solicitor, but it went unanswered. VIEW ALL After a second email was copied to the firm’s managing partner, the solicitor responded to acknowledge she received the email and would return with a substantive response. This never occurred. Justice Walker said that in the absence of an explanation from the solicitor, the “practicable course” was to have the matter referred on. “Even putting to one side the [AI] guidelines, reliance by a practitioner on authorities which do not exist, and on ‘quotations’ that are not in fact taken from the cases cited, represents a falling short of the standards of diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent lawyer,” Justice Walker said. The court also made criticisms of the solicitor’s conduct in advancing her client’s application for leave to appeal a judicial review decision. In the 10 months since the application was commenced, “barely” any progress had been made, the application book was not finalised, and there was a repeated failure to comply with court directions. In dismissing the application, Justice Walker said it would “not be in the interests of the efficient conduct of the court’s business and use of judicial resources for this matter to remain on foot”. Justice Walker noted a “great many emails” from registry staff and the respondent were ignored by the applicant’s solicitors, “or have not been answered in any meaningful way”. No explanation other than “unforeseen staffing issues” was provided to justify the delay and an “apparent inability” to order a transcript. Citation: Oberoi v Douglas [2026] VSCA 31. Naomi Neilson Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly, as well as other titles under the Momentum Media umbrella. She regularly writes about matters before the Federal Court of Australia, the Supreme Courts, the Civil and Administrative Tribunals, and the Fair Work Commission. Naomi has also published investigative pieces about the legal profession, including sexual harassment and bullying, wage disputes, and staff exoduses. You can email Naomi at: naomi.neilson@momentummedia.com.au. Tags News Artificial Intelligence supreme court of victoria Legal Services Commissioner disciplinary GenAI