SINGAPORE – Two lawyers have been ordered to bear a cost of $5,000 each for their roles in mentioning two fictitious cases in a closing submission cited in court.
In a judgment on March 6, Justice S. Mohan said it was “plainly evident” that an AI tool had been used in the preparation of the draft.
While there is no inherent objection to the use of AI tools in the industry, Justice Mohan said such tools can play the part of only the “handmaiden”.
“The fundamental point remains that lawyers bear ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all materials placed before the court – including case authorities – are, without exception, true and accurate, and crucially, verified by them to be so,” said the judge, who added that AI tools will become an increasingly prevalent feature of the legal ecosystem.
The case surrounds the estate of the late Mr Tan Thuan Teck and three suits filed by his sons against the late Mr Tan’s brothers and their company. Mr Tan’s sons had filed the suits in 2023 to recover money their father had lent to his brothers and their company.
Justice Mohan, who presided over the trial in 2025, had found that Mr Tan’s sons, who are the co-executors of his estate, had made out their case, and ordered Mr Tan’s brothers and their company to pay them a sum of $180,000.
But the crux of his judgment on March 6 focused on the presence of two fictitious cases that the defendant’s counsel, Mr Goh Peck San, had cited in his closing submissions.
The fictitious cases were discovered by the claimant’s lawyer.
Court documents showed Mr Goh had engaged another solicitor, Mr Amarjit Singh Sidhu, to assist him in carrying out research to draft his closing submissions, which included Case A and Case B.
