Re Walker
SC Victoria · Nov 24, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- SC Victoria
- Record ID
- re-walker-2025-11-24
- Observed outcome
- The Court imposed a formal reprimand on the solicitor for unsatisfactory professional conduct.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Supreme Court of Victoria reprimanded a solicitor for filing submissions containing hallucinated case law generated by 'CourtAid' and 'ChatGPT'. The Court determined that the solicitor's failure to verify AI-generated output violated professional standards and the Court's specific AI guidelines, constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Two other authorities in the submissions were inaccurately cited or misnamed; the solicitor provided corrected names/copies for some but one corrected authority was irrelevant to the passing-over issue. || Fabricated: Case Law | Two authorities cited in the defendant's opening submissions could not be located; Supreme Court Library inquiries confirmed they did not exist and the solicitor said AI produced the references.
Using legal-tech tools like CourtAid alongside ChatGPT does not excuse verification — reprimands follow regardless of tool pedigree.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Other
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- CourtAid, ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Disciplinary matter heard within the Court's inherent jurisdiction during a probate proceeding.
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
The solicitor used CourtAid and ChatGPT.
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.
- Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.
- Do not treat a paid legal-research product as a substitute for source verification.