South Korean courts prepare penalties for invented case citations
South Korea’s court administration is examining fines and lawyer disciplinary referrals after surveying judges about fabricated legal references linked to artificial intelligence. Respondents described invented judgments, distorted precedents and copied chatbot conversations. The planned response includes possible procedural-law amendments and guidance for people submitting documents through the electronic litigation system.
Artificial Intelligence··Midday
A response through procedure law
South Korea’s National Court Administration, which supports the country’s courts, is preparing an institutional response to false legal references associated with artificial intelligence. Its November 2 survey announcement describes possible fines and disciplinary referrals involving lawyers. A total of 360 judges answered the questionnaire, conducted from October 6 to 16. Among respondents handling civil, family and administrative proceedings, roughly 80 per cent recalled encountering inaccurate or invented citations.[1], [2]
Invented judgments in submissions
The examples included fabricated documents resembling Supreme Court judgments and case numbers for decisions that could not be found. Other submissions altered the meaning of genuine rulings. Some even carried fragments of chatbot conversations or discussions about litigation strategy. Respondents identified both litigants acting for themselves and lawyers as submitting erroneous references. The survey asked about judges’ experiences with these documents; its percentages concern respondents, rather than every filing received by the courts.[1]
Fines, verification and guidance
The administration says checking nonexistent authorities adds work for opponents and can slow hearings, with particular difficulties for people appearing without lawyers. It intends to discuss changes to civil and criminal procedure with the justice ministry and other institutions before submitting views to the legislature. A verification duty and disclosure of AI use were among the measures put to judges. Notices on the electronic litigation service are also being considered.[1]
