Marcus Groesser and Ira Hess v. Robert Phelps Herman
Supreme Court of The Bahamas · Aug 1, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court referred the defense counsel to the Ethics Committee of The Bahamas Bar Association for investigation regarding the submission of AI-generated fabricated case law and ordered the defendant to bear the plaintiffs' costs for the application.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that there is no distinction between oral speaking points and written submissions; both are intended to influence the court's judgment. The court held that counsel has a non-delegable duty to verify the authenticity of all cited authorities, and the submission of fictitious cases constitutes a serious breach of professional responsibility that risks misleading the court and damaging the integrity of the judicial process.
- Why it matters now
- Speaking notes are submissions — courts reject the 'not on the official record' defence and will refer to the Bar.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent Kelly v Rolle cited in oral submissions; court confirmed the case does not exist and the citation led to an unrelated decision (Hall v The Attorney General). Outcome: Overall issue of hallucination referred to the bar; Order to bear costs. "37. The Court does not accept that there is a difference between the oral and written submissions. In fact, had there not been a request by the Plaintiff to respond, the Court would have ruled on the oral submission and such ruling could have significantly relied on the submissions of Defence Counsel. The implications are severe and serious when the Court cannot accept Counsel's assertion to be truthful and cases to be real. The risk of harm to the integrity of the judicial process is real and could bring the system into disrepute. [...]40. The Court does not accept Ms. Taylor's submission that the fictitious cases were verified before layover and that they were only used in speaking points and were "not intended to form the official record." I find there is no distinction between the speaking points, oral submissions and written submission. They are all submissions advanced by Counsel intended for the Court to rely on them in the process of decision making. The purpose of which was to guide a judgment in your client's favour. The attempt to draw such a distinction is one without merit and the Court rejects same without more."
Speaking notes are submissions — courts reject the 'not on the official record' defence and will refer to the Bar.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Counsel admitted to using ChatGPT for research.
Ruling on a Notice of Application to strike out a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim for procedural irregularities, during which the court addressed the use of fabricated legal authorities.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent Kelly v Rolle cited in oral submissions; court confirmed the case does not exist and the citation led to an unrelated decision (Hall v The Attorney General).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent Petrie v Dowling cited; court confirmed no such [1992] 1 WLR 1017 case exists.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Non-existent Ladmat Ltd v Backo cited; court found the citation led to CVC v Almeida and that the asserted holding was fabricated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Later submission of a fabricated appellate citation for Kelly v Rolle; court noted impossible panel date (post-retirement of Conteh JA) and mismatched file number.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Marcus Groesser and Ira Hess v. Robert Phelps Herman?
- The court referred the defense counsel to the Ethics Committee of The Bahamas Bar Association for investigation regarding the submission of AI-generated fabricated case law and ordered the defendant to bear the plaintiffs' costs for the application.
- Why does Marcus Groesser and Ira Hess v. Robert Phelps Herman matter for legal AI risk?
- Speaking notes are submissions — courts reject the 'not on the official record' defence and will refer to the Bar.
- What does the public record establish about Marcus Groesser and Ira Hess v. Robert Phelps Herman?
- 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 Marcus Groesser and Ira Hess v. Robert Phelps Herman 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.