Ko v. Li
Ontario SCJ · May 28, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court dismissed the contempt show cause proceeding against counsel after she admitted to filing AI-hallucinated case law. The judge declined to impose a fine, finding that the public shaming and counsel's remedial commitments—including mandatory Continuing Professional Development and a waiver of fees for the defective work—sufficiently addressed the court's concerns regarding professional conduct and the administration of justice.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the goals of contempt proceedings—maintaining court dignity, denouncing misconduct, and deterrence—were already met through the public nature of the proceedings and counsel's forthright admission, apology, and commitment to remedial training. The court noted that Canadian courts have different regulatory roles compared to US courts regarding lawyer discipline and that the professional consequences already incurred by counsel were sufficient.
- Why it matters now
- Counsel escaped fine only by agreeing to CPD and forgoing billing; ChatGPT hallucinations trigger mandatory training orders.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated precedent case cited in Ms. Lee’s factum (one of several); the judge could find no record of it and Ms. Lee later confirmed it was an AI-generated hallucination from ChatGPT; the factum was revised to remove fake citations. Outcome: Plaintiff’s application dismissed; no costs imposed; court warns against future use of generative AI without verification; subsequent suspension and fine. (Order to show cause is here.)At the end of the show cause proceedings, Justice Myers noted that, due to the media reports about this case, the goals of any further contempt proceedings were already met, including: "maintaining the dignity of the court and the fairness of civil justice system, promoting honourable behaviour by counsel before the court, denouncing serious misconduct, deterring similar future misconduct by the legal profession, the public generally, and by Ms. Lee specifically, and rehabilitation".The judge therefore declined to impose a fine or to continue the contempt proceedings, on the condition that Counsel undertakes Continuing Professional Development courses (as she said she would), and does not bill her client for any unrelated work (which was helped by the fact that she had so far been working pro bono).SequelIt later surfaced that Ms. Lee had not been fully honest with the court, leading to renewed contempt proceedings (see here). In July 2026, the Law Society of Ontario suspensed her for six months, adding a 10,000 CAD fine (see here).
Counsel escaped fine only by agreeing to CPD and forgoing billing; ChatGPT hallucinations trigger mandatory training orders.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Counsel admitted using ChatGPT for the factum.
Show cause proceeding for contempt of court initiated by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice following the submission of a factum containing fabricated legal authorities.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated precedent case cited in Ms. Lee’s factum (one of several); the judge could find no record of it and Ms. Lee later confirmed it was an AI-generated hallucination from ChatGPT; the factum was revised to remove fake citations.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent precedent case relied upon orally at the May 1, 2025 hearing (second of two); the court could not locate it and Ms. Lee admitted it was an AI hallucination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent precedent case relied upon orally at the May 1, 2025 hearing (first of two); the court could not locate it and Ms. Lee admitted it was an AI hallucination.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ko v. Li?
- The court dismissed the contempt show cause proceeding against counsel after she admitted to filing AI-hallucinated case law. The judge declined to impose a fine, finding that the public shaming and counsel's remedial commitments—including mandatory Continuing Professional Development and a waiver of fees for the defective work—sufficiently addressed the court's concerns regarding professional conduct and the administration of justice.
- Why does Ko v. Li matter for legal AI risk?
- Counsel escaped fine only by agreeing to CPD and forgoing billing; ChatGPT hallucinations trigger mandatory training orders.
- What does the public record establish about Ko v. Li?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Ko v. Li summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.