Large Language Law

On August 19, 2025, the Victorian Legal Services Board revised the practising certificate of the Victorian lawyer identified as ‘Mr Dayal’ in Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 by the Federal Circuit and Family Court.

Mr Dayal was reported to the Office of the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner for presenting the Court with a document that included summaries of nonexistent case authorities. An AI tool included in the lawyer’s established legal practice management software produced the summaries and list. The solicitor did not assess the AI-generated output before submitting the document to the Court.

Humphrey’s J stated the following: Relevantly to the conduct of the solicitor before me, the duties of Victorian solicitors include:

(a) The paramount duty to the court and to the administration of justice,^[11] which includes a specific duty not to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court;^[12]

(b) Other fundamental ethical duties, including to deliver legal services competently and diligently;^[13] and

(c) To not engage in conduct which is likely to diminish public confidence in the administration of justice or bring the legal profession into disrepute.^[14]

The solicitor has acknowledged a breach of the professional standards expected of a solicitor in this court, by his conduct in tendering a list and summary of authorities that do not exist, generated without disclosing the source of the information presented to the court and without verifying its accuracy. Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166. 17-18

The change to Mr Dayal’s practising certificate resulted in him: 

• being prohibited from practising as a principal lawyer, 
• barred from managing trust funds, 
• no longer able to operate his own law firm, restricted to working as an employee solicitor, 
• engaging in supervised legal practice for two years, 
• During the supervised period, the lawyer and his supervisor must report to the Victorian Legal Services Board quarterly.

The actions taken by the Board in this instance demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that legal professionals who utilise AI in their practice do so responsibly and in accordance with their obligations.

The Board strongly recommend that legal practitioners refer to their Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice and consider engaging in continuing professional development to enhance their comprehension if they intend to integrate AI into their legal practice.

Source: Victorian Legal Services Commission