Zhang v. Chen
BC Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2024
What happened in this matter?
The BC Supreme Court ordered counsel to personally pay costs incurred by the opposing party due to the inclusion of AI-generated fake citations in court filings. The court determined that while the lawyer lacked intent to deceive, the conduct constituted an abuse of process and necessitated a remedial review of all the lawyer's active files.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that citing fake cases is an abuse of process and tantamount to a false statement. However, it found no intent to deceive, noting the lawyer was naive about AI risks and took corrective steps. Costs were awarded under R. 16-1(30) because the lawyer's neglect caused the opposing party to incur unnecessary expense, rather than as a punitive special costs award.
- Why it matters now
- BC Supreme Court equated fake AI citations with making a false statement to the court - costs attach and careers follow.
Why this matter is tracked
In a family law proceeding, counsel for the respondent included two non-existent case citations in a notice of application, which were generated by ChatGPT. Opposing counsel discovered the citations were fabricated and requested verification. Counsel for the respondent admitted the error, attributing it to a lack of knowledge regarding AI risks and a failure to verify the output. The BC Supreme Court found the inclusion of fake cases to be an abuse of process and tantamount to a false statement to the court. While the court declined to award special costs, finding no intent to deceive, it ordered the lawyer to personally pay costs incurred by the claimant due to the investigation of the fabricated authorities and mandated a review of all pending files.
BC Supreme Court equated fake AI citations with making a false statement to the court - costs attach and careers follow.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Counsel admitted using ChatGPT to generate citations.
Ruling on costs following an application for parenting time.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Two case citations in the notice of application were invented by ChatGPT and could not be located; court accepted they were fabricated and Counsel admitted using ChatGPT.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Second invented citation in the notice of application was generated by ChatGPT and non-existent; disclosed by opposing counsel's research and admitted by Counsel
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Zhang v. Chen?
- The BC Supreme Court ordered counsel to personally pay costs incurred by the opposing party due to the inclusion of AI-generated fake citations in court filings. The court determined that while the lawyer lacked intent to deceive, the conduct constituted an abuse of process and necessitated a remedial review of all the lawyer's active files.
- Why does Zhang v. Chen matter for legal AI risk?
- BC Supreme Court equated fake AI citations with making a false statement to the court - costs attach and careers follow.
- What does the public record establish about Zhang v. Chen?
- 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 Zhang v. Chen 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.