What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Remove reference to Municipality of the City of Cape Town v Aon South Africa (Pty) Ltd as it does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Remove reference to Pieterse v The Public Protector as it does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Remove reference to Burgers v The Executive Committee of the Municipal Council of the Greater Germiston Municipality as it does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Remove reference to Dube v Schleich as it does not exist. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Correct the interpretation of service rules in court documents. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Adhere to proper service protocols as outlined in court rules. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Ensure accurate context when referencing case law. || Fabricated: Case Law | Remove reference to Citi Bank NA v L & M Commercial Limited as it does not exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Use relevant cases that accurately support legal arguments. || Fabricated: Case Law | Remove reference to Hassan v Coetzee as it does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Remove reference to Jordaan v Pienaar as it does not exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Ensure accurate context when referencing case law. || Fabricated: Case Law | Remove reference to Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Lethole as it does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Remove reference to Makro Properties (Pty) Ltd v Raal as it does not exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Use accurate case law for supporting specific legal arguments.

Details

AI UseThe judgment does not explicitly confirm that generative AI was used, but the judge strongly suspects ChatGPT or a similar tool was the source. The judge even ran prompts into ChatGPT and confirmed that the tool responded with fabricated support for the same fake cases used in the submission. Counsel blamed overwork and delegation to a candidate attorney (Ms. Farouk), who denied AI use but gave vague and evasive answers.Hallucination DetailsFabricated or misattributed cases included:Pieterse v. The Public Protector (no such case exists at cited location)Burgers v. The Executive Committee..., Dube v. Schleich, City of Cape Town v. Aon SA, Makro Properties v. Raal, Standard Bank v. Lethole — none found in SAFLII or major reportersCitations were often invented or misattributed to irrelevant decisions (e.g., a Competition Tribunal merger approval cited as support for service rules)The supplementary notice of appeal included misleading summaries with no accurate paragraph citations, and no proper authority was ever provided for key procedural points.Ruling/SanctionApplication for leave to appeal dismissed in fullLegal representatives ordered to pay costs of the 22 and 25 September 2024 appearances de bonis propriisJudgment referred to the Legal Practice CouncilJudge emphasized that the conduct went beyond the leniency shown in Parker v. Forsyth, as it involved unverified submissions in a signed court filing and then doubling down during oral argument.Key Judicial ReasoningJustice Bezuidenhout issued a lengthy and stern warning on the professional obligation to verify authorities. She held that “relying on AI technologies when doing legal research is irresponsible and downright unprofessional,” and emphasized that even ignorance of AI’s flaws does not excuse unethical conduct. The judgment discusses comparative standards, ethical obligations, and recent literature in detail.

Sanction teardown · High Court, South Africa · 2025-01-08

Mavundla v. MEC

What happened

In High Court, South Africa, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Fabricated (Case Law)

Remove reference to Municipality of the City of Cape Town v Aon South Africa (Pty) Ltd as it does not exist.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Remove reference to Pieterse v The Public Protector as it does not exist.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Remove reference to Burgers v The Executive Committee of the Municipal Council of the Greater Germiston Municipality as it does not exist.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Remove reference to Dube v Schleich as it does not exist.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Correct the interpretation of service rules in court documents.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Adhere to proper service protocols as outlined in court rules.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Ensure accurate context when referencing case law.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Remove reference to Citi Bank NA v L & M Commercial Limited as it does not exist.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Use relevant cases that accurately support legal arguments.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Remove reference to Hassan v Coetzee as it does not exist.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Remove reference to Jordaan v Pienaar as it does not exist.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Ensure accurate context when referencing case law.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Remove reference to Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Lethole as it does not exist.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Remove reference to Makro Properties (Pty) Ltd v Raal as it does not exist.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Use accurate case law for supporting specific legal arguments.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Leave for appel dismissed with costs; referral to Legal Practice Council

Additional detail

AI UseThe judgment does not explicitly confirm that generative AI was used, but the judge strongly suspects ChatGPT or a similar tool was the source. The judge even ran prompts into ChatGPT and confirmed that the tool responded with fabricated support for the same fake cases used in the submission. Counsel blamed overwork and delegation to a candidate attorney (Ms. Farouk), who denied AI use but gave vague and evasive answers.Hallucination DetailsFabricated or misattributed cases included:Pieterse v. The Public Protector (no such case exists at cited location)Burgers v. The Executive Committee..., Dube v. Schleich, City of Cape Town v. Aon SA, Makro Properties v. Raal, Standard Bank v. Lethole — none found in SAFLII or major reportersCitations were often invented or misattributed to irrelevant decisions (e.g., a Competition Tribunal merger approval cited as support for service rules)The supplementary notice of appeal included misleading summaries with no accurate paragraph citations, and no proper authority was ever provided for key procedural points.Ruling/SanctionApplication for leave to appeal dismissed in fullLegal representatives ordered to pay costs of the 22 and 25 September 2024 appearances de bonis propriisJudgment referred to the Legal Practice CouncilJudge emphasized that the conduct went beyond the leniency shown in Parker v. Forsyth, as it involved unverified submissions in a signed court filing and then doubling down during oral argument.Key Judicial ReasoningJustice Bezuidenhout issued a lengthy and stern warning on the professional obligation to verify authorities. She held that “relying on AI technologies when doing legal research is irresponsible and downright unprofessional,” and emphasized that even ignorance of AI’s flaws does not excuse unethical conduct. The judgment discusses comparative standards, ethical obligations, and recent literature in detail.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/335/Mavundla_v_MEC_South_Africa_January_8_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).