Zhang v. Chen
BC Supreme Court · Feb 20, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- BC Supreme Court
- Record ID
- zhang-v-chen-2024-02-20
- Observed outcome
- Counsel for the respondent was ordered to personally pay costs incurred by the claimant related to the investigation of the fake citations and was ordered to review all active files for AI-generated content.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
BC Supreme Court equated fake AI citations with making a false statement to the court - costs attach and careers follow.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Fake Citations
- Family
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Ruling on costs following an application for parenting time.
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
Counsel admitted using ChatGPT to generate citations.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence and accuracy of every legal authority cited in court filings, regardless of the research tool used.
- Disclose the use of generative AI in court submissions in accordance with local Law Society guidance.
- Conduct a comprehensive audit of pending litigation files if AI tools were used in their preparation.
- Promptly notify the court and opposing counsel upon discovering any inaccuracies in submitted materials.