Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Ko v. Li
Ontario SCJ · May 28, 2025
CanadaEditorial impact: career endingfake citationsothertrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Plaintiff’s application dismissed; no costs imposed; court warns against future use of generative AI without verification; subsequent suspension and fine; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- 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).
Operational lesson
Counsel escaped fine only by agreeing to CPD and forgoing billing; ChatGPT hallucinations trigger mandatory training orders.
Record details
CourtOntario SCJ
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 28, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomePlaintiff’s application dismissed; no costs imposed; court warns against future use of generative AI without verification; subsequent suspension and fine
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Plaintiff’s application dismissed; no costs imposed; court warns against future use of generative AI without verification; subsequent suspension and fine
Correction behavior
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?
- 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.…
- 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.