In the words of Joan Wallach Scott “Those who expect moments of change to be comfortable and free of conflict have not learned their history.”
These words epitomise the reality that we are faced with in a society where AI has become commonplace in the daily lives of many people. One needs merely to type any query regarding the use, risks, benefits, dangers etc. of AI into any online search engine to see just how pervasive and topical this discussion is.
In times of change, in particular in a world with a wealth of information at your fingertips, these changes often necessitate that laws and societal norms be adapted or expanded to keep pace with the changing world.
Unfortunately, there are often times, such as where we find ourselves now, that there is not as yet sufficient regulation to keep up with new developments. The first known case for the legal profession in South Africa was delivered in June 2023, where in the matter of Parker v Forsyth NNO and Others (1585/20) [2023] ZAGPRD 1 (29 June 2023) at paragraph 87 of this judgment, the court recorded that:
“The Plaintiff’s attorneys used this artificial intelligence medium to conduct legal research and accepted the results that it generated without satisfying themselves as to its accuracy. As it turned out, the cases listed above do not exist.”
The court criticized the attorneys in that case by noting that “It seems to the court that they placed undue faith in the veracity of the legal research generated by artificial intelligence and lazily omitted to verify the research.”
This case should have been a clear warning to legal professionals to take care when using AI, to verify the sources and cases cited. Unfortunately, the use of AI continues with no clear indication as yet regarding the appropriate use of AI in the legal profession. Legal practitioners fell into the same pitfall earlier this year in the case of Northbound Processing (Pty) Ltd v South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator and Others (2025/072038) [2025] ZAGPJHC 661 (30 June 2025).
In the Northbound case, the matter involved non-existing case citations “hallucinated” by generative artificial intelligence in response to which the Court went further and ordered that “The issues described in paragraphs 86 to 96 above are referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation and the registrar of this court is directed to bring this judgment to the attention of the Gauteng Provincial Office of the LPC for that purpose.”
It is clear that the use of AI, whilst widely utilised, is not without risks, and whilst the risks pointed out in this article relate to the legal profession, all people, whether personally or professionally should consider carefully how they use AI. This care is of particular importance whilst we wait to see what actions are taken by authorities to regulate its use or provide an overarching policy governing AI use.
Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).
