Mertz & Mertz (No 3)
Family Court · Nov 28, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Family Court
- Record ID
- mertz-mertz-no-3-2025-11-28
- Observed outcome
- The Court ordered the appellant's solicitor to pay AUD 10,000 in costs to the respondent for correcting AI-related errors and referred the conduct of the solicitor and two counsel to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner.
- Known monetary consequence
- A$10,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court ordered the appellant's solicitor to pay AUD 10,000 in costs for correcting AI-generated errors and referred the conduct of the solicitor and two counsel to professional regulatory bodies for investigation after they filed unverified, hallucinated case law citations in court documents.
The Court reasoned that legal practitioners have an absolute professional and ethical obligation to verify the accuracy and relevance of all authorities cited in court documents, regardless of whether AI was used in their preparation. The Court emphasized that reliance on unverified AI research misleads the court, wastes time, and creates unnecessary complexity. It determined that referring the practitioners to regulatory bodies was necessary both for disciplinary review and to serve the public interest by highlighting the risks associated with AI in legal practice.
Australian family courts are now pairing AUD 10K costs orders with bar referrals when counsel files unverified AI authorities — professional jeopardy is real.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Bar Referral
- Family
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- A$10,000
- Procedural posture
- Appellate proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) following a Notice of Discontinuance filed by the appellant.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Practitioners admitted AI use but did not identify the specific program.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.
- Set a written rule for permissible AI use and mandatory verification.