South Korean judges report widespread fake AI legal citations

Yonhap reported that the Supreme Court released the survey on Nov. 2, covering judges’ experiences with AI-generated false or nonexistent legal precedents.[1] The survey included 360 judges and was conducted from Oct. 6 to Oct. 16.[1] About 80 percent of judges handling civil, family and administrative cases said they had experienced such cases.[1] Separately, the survey counted 196 judges, or 80.7 percent, who had seen nonexistent legal precedents cited in court cases.[1] These figures describe reported experience, not a count of cases.

The survey also found that 159 judges, or 65.4 percent, had encountered cases involving citations of false precedents.[1] Forty-one judges, or 16.9 percent, reported cases citing false or nonexistent laws and regulations, while 10 judges, or 4.1 percent, had seen false or nonexistent theses and publications cited.[1] The findings distinguish among types of material, so the figures should not be treated as one combined count.[1] For legal teams, the reported range is a reason to check cited authorities and sources rather than focusing only on case names.

Judges said citations of false legal precedents came from both litigants and legal representatives.[1] The survey found that 164 judges, or 69.5 percent, said litigants themselves cited false precedents; 136 judges, or 57.6 percent, said lawyers representing parties had done so.[1] ChosunBiz also reported examples of submissions that copied the Supreme Court’s judgment format, paired case numbers with unfamiliar principles, or altered actual holdings.[2] It reported that some briefs included AI conversation text or litigation-strategy language verbatim.[2]

Nearly 92 percent of respondents said institutional measures were needed to address citations of AI-generated fake precedents.[1] Measures proposed in the survey included legal grounds for fines, verification requirements and disciplinary action for lawyers who repeatedly cite false information.[1] ChosunBiz reported that the National Court Administration planned to consult agencies including the Ministry of Justice and submit its views to the National Assembly on creating a legal basis for fines.[2] The described plan would amend the Civil Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Act.[2] The evidence describes proposals and a plan, not enacted changes.