South AfricaProfessional services2024–2025Applicant's law firm in Mavundla v MEC (KwaZulu-Natal)
AI-assisted legal research for a High Court filing
Seven of nine cases a South African law firm cited did not exist, and the court referred it to the Legal Practice Council
Problem
A small law firm acting for the applicant in a dispute with the KwaZulu-Natal provincial government had to support its written submissions with case law. The supervising attorney did not check the authorities before they were filed.
Approach
The firm's written submissions cited nine case authorities. When the High Court checked them, only two were genuine; the rest were fabrications typical of generative AI output. In its January 2025 judgment the court called the conduct irresponsible and unprofessional, criticised the supervising attorney, made a costs order against the firm and referred the matter to the Legal Practice Council for investigation.
Results
Takeaway
The supervising attorney failed to check whether the AI-generated citations existed before filing. In South Africa's earlier Parker v Forsyth (2023) case, a court found no intent to mislead; by 2025 the response included costs and a regulatory referral.
Categories
- Size
- Small business
- Industry
- Professional services
- Business function
- Finance, risk and legalInternal work and knowledge management
- Innovation type
- Process innovation
- AI technology
- Generative AI
- Adoption
- Off-the-shelf tool or platform
- Evidence
- Regulator, audit or court
Sources
Source summaries
Two University of the Free State law lecturers review South African cases of AI-fabricated citations. They describe the January 2025 Mavundla judgment, in which only two of nine cited authorities were genuine, the court's criticism of the supervising attorney and its referral to the Legal Practice Council. They contrast it with Parker v Forsyth in 2023, where the court found no intent to mislead.
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr reported that only two of the nine authorities cited in Mavundla were genuine. The firm was ordered to pay costs of additional court appearances, and the registrar was told to send the judgment to the Legal Practice Council's KwaZulu-Natal office.
Full details are in the original sources.
