AI 'ghost cases' challenge South Korean courts

South Korea's judiciary is confronting a growing problem of artificial intelligence generating false legal information, leading attorneys to cite non-existent "ghost precedents" in court submissions. The National Court Administration is actively reviewing legislative changes and amending court procedures to penalize the submission of fabricated legal evidence created by AI. Judges report an increasing number of instances where lawyers cite cases and statutes that do not exist, significantly slowing down the review process.

“

In written judgments, I used to point out non-existent cases cited by lawyers in footnotes. Now, there are so many that I point them out in brackets in the main text.

One judge noted a shift from pointing out these errors in footnotes to highlighting them directly in the main text of judgments due to their sheer volume. The administrative body of the court is exploring measures such as fines for attorneys who submit false statutes or precedents. They are also considering procedural rule changes that would require parties to disclose their use of AI in preparing legal documents. Currently, courts can restrict arguments, request disciplinary action against attorneys, or impose litigation costs if AI misuse delays proceedings.

“

It is more time-consuming now, because I have to go through each cited case.

Examples of AI misuse include an attorney at the Daegu High Court citing a non-existent Supreme Court precedent, and upon request for clarification, citing another non-existent case. In another instance, a lawyer cited a section of the Civil Procedure Act but described unrelated legal content. Acknowledging the use of Google Gemini, one attorney admitted to not properly reviewing the content of a cited Supreme Court precedent. The judiciary has also enhanced its Judicial Information Disclosure Portal to allow users to verify case numbers and distributed a guidebook to judges on using AI to detect false precedents, including specific prompts for authenticity checks. The National Court Administration has allocated funds to develop its own internal AI system.

“

An excessive amount of time goes into the review process as judges confirm cases, keeping open the possibility that the attorney may simply have made a typo.