The legal profession is no exception to the increasing use of AI tools by professionals to maximise workflows and streamline laborious and lengthy tasks. There have already been numerous examples across many areas of law where courts have highlighted the risks of using AI in constructing legal arguments and preparing cases for litigation. 

Maddocks’ Wills and Estates team have reviewed recent decisions in estate litigation that serve as a reminder for all legal practitioners, new and established, that any content produced by AI tools in matters (and court proceedings generally) must be thoughtfully and thoroughly reviewed with professional skill and expertise, or risk referral to the Legal Services Commissioner. 

Evolving practices are creating a heightened need for professional guidance

It is well known that seasonal clerks and graduate lawyers in the legal industry have their work carefully reviewed, amended and perfected by Partners before a client or third party would see it. This is how emerging lawyers learn and how firms can increase efficiencies, particularly when research tasks are involved. The same must be true for any content generated by AI, ensuring that practitioners exercise judgement and professional skill.

The Supreme Court of Victoria has emphasised that

 "the use of AI programs by a party must not indirectly mislead another participant in the litigation process (including the Court) as to the nature of any work undertaken or the content produced by that program...the use of AI should be disclosed to other parties and the court."

The risks of failing to thoroughly review AI generated content gets real

Recent judicial developments serve as a timely reminder of the duties owed to the Court by legal practitioners when preparing court documents and submissions, always. 

• Re Walker [2025] VSC 714: in this contested probate matter, a solicitor relied on AI tools to draft submissions to the Court. Upon considering the parties submissions, the Court was unable to verify some of the citations and requested that the solicitor provide further details to the Court. The Court found that the cases cited did not exist and that the AI tool used by the solicitor had ‘hallucinated’ them. Re Walker [2025] VSC 714 (24 November 2025)
   
• Oberoi v Douglas [2026] VSCA 31: similar to Re Walker, documents were filed with the Court that appeared to have used AI for part of the applicants written case. This included non-existent authorities and ‘hallucinated quotations from real cases’. The Court emphasised that practitioners are personally responsible for the accuracy of filed documents, and that this is fundamental to the due administration of justice. Oberoi v Douglas [2026] VSCA 31 (5 March 2026)

Justice Moore in Re Walker emphasised that practitioners who conduct litigation in the Court have a responsibility…as part of their professional obligations…to appropriately inform themselves about the obligations and duties to which they are subject. This includes the necessity for practitioners to understand the limitations of AI tools and to disclose their use.

This sentiment was shared by Justice Walker in Oberoi v Douglas, noting that

"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."

Why AI makes legal judgement more critical than ever

Recent estate litigation decisions make clear that AI does not diminish, and in fact heightens, the professional, ethical and forensic responsibilities owed by legal practitioners to the Court. 

Failure to understand and manage the limitations of AI exposes practitioners to real professional and regulatory risk, reinforcing that expert judgement, accountability and expertise remain critical.