AI generated precedent written into proxy opinion: How courts handle it

Three layers of consequences, one layer heavier than the other

• Using AI to fabricate facts and evidence to file lawsuitsIt belongs to false litigation, and the court will reject the lawsuit request, and may also impose fines or detention. Those who constitute a crime will be held criminally responsible.
• Using AI to forge evidence and obstruct trialsAccording to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law on compulsory measures for obstructing civil litigation, fines, detention, and even criminal liability shall be imposed.
• Submit AI generated document or case retrieval reportThis is the most common layer that lawyers and businesses encounter in their daily lives: they have the obligation to verify and explain, and are legally responsible for the authenticity and accuracy of the content.

At the press conference where this opinion was released, the Supreme Court's statement was very straightforward: it cannot exempt itself from legal responsibility on the grounds of "AI illusion" and "technological neutrality".

Why are precedents the most prone to accidents

The cases fabricated by AI have a characteristic:The format is perfect, the case number looks very serious, the verdict is written clearly, but the case doesn't exist at all.Or the case number may be genuine, but the content has been transferred. The opposing lawyer only needs to say one sentence during the trial, 'Please have the collegiate bench verify the case number,' and that's enough once. Cases that cannot be verified will be included in the proxy opinion, with the credibility of the document being reduced to zero at the slightest, and the consequences being borne according to the third layer above. At the beginning of this year, the media focused on reporting several incidents of submitting AI false cases, and the relevant rules have been included in the case database of the People's Court.

Our practice

The rules of this institution are simple:All cases and legal provisions written in documents shall be reviewed in their original textVerify the case number, parties involved, main points of the judgment, and the current effectiveness of the case (whether it has been retried or revised, and whether there are new judicial interpretations covering it). The role of AI here is to organize and screen: classify materials and expand the search scope, which it does quickly; But every citation to be included in the document must be verified by the handling lawyer against the original text. Tools improve efficiency, and the responsible party is always the person handling the case.

Reminder to Enterprises

If you receive a "legal opinion" or "case report" organized by someone else using AI, can you check the case number on the Judgment Document Network or the People's Court Case Database before citing it yourself? Is the verdict consistent with the original text? Does this report specify which content is generated with AI assistance? I can pass all three questions, it's not too late to use them again. When enterprises do their own legal digital management, it is also recommended to write "AI output must be verified" as a checkpoint in the process, without relying on everyone's self-awareness.

If you have received suspicious cases submitted by the other party in the lawsuit, or if you want to standardize the process of using AI within the team, please feel free to contact us at Room 1802, Building A, Xintian Century Business Center, Shixia North Second Street, Futian District, Shenzhen, at 0755-25986969.

This article is written by the director of our firm and the head of the law firmShen Jinlong Lawyer(Practicing license number 1440320410315584) Signed and published.