Can lawyers face action for AI-generated fake citations? Here’s what BCI told parliament

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has said that advocates who file AI-generated fake citations, fabricated quotations or non-existent judgments cannot escape professional liability by blaming technology..Responding to a parliamentary query on artificial intelligence in the legal profession, the BCI said lawyers remain responsible for every pleading and submission filed before a court regardless of whether AI tools were used in their preparation.“If a false case, fake quote, or misleading proposition is filed, the advocate cannot avoid accountability by saying that a machine produced it. The machine neither signs the pleading nor owes duties to the court. The advocate does,” it said.The Council added that AI may be used as an assistive tool for legal research, drafting, summarisation, transcription and document management, but cannot replace a lawyer’s independent judgment, ethical obligations or accountability to courts and clients..The BCI’s response comes amid growing judicial concern over lawyers and courts relying on AI-generated material containing fabricated authorities, non-existent judgments and inaccurate legal propositions..According to BCI, the use of AI in legal practice is not prohibited. Lawyers may use AI tools for preliminary legal research, document organisation, drafting assistance, language refinement, summarisation, indexing of records, transcription support and identification of drafting errors.However, it stressed that every statute, precedent, quotation and proposition of law generated through AI must be independently verified from authoritative sources before being relied upon in court.The Council emphasised that use of AI does not create a defence against professional misconduct.The bar body explained its position by pointing out that said AI does not enjoy any status recognised under the legal profession’s regulatory framework.Unlike advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, AI tools have no enrolment, no right of audience, no fiduciary obligations, no legal personality and no disciplinary accountability.Consequently, legal responsibility always remains with the advocate and never with the technology used by him..Supreme Court flags 'alarming' trend of lawyers using AI to draft petitions.The BCI also referred to recent concerns expressed by the Supreme Court regarding the use of artificial intelligence in legal work.It cited proceedings before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant earlier this year, where concerns were raised over lawyers filing petitions containing fake citations and fabricated quotations generated through AI tools. The Court had also expressed concern over declining drafting standards and the increasing tendency to file lengthy compilations instead of concise legal pleadings.The Council also referred to the Supreme Court’s recent order in Gummadi Usha Rani v Sure Mallikarjuna Rao, where the Court took cognisance of allegations that a trial court had relied on AI-generated non-existent judgments.In that case, the Supreme Court observed that a decision based on fake or non-existent AI-generated judgments would not merely amount to an error in decision-making but could constitute misconduct carrying legal consequences..The BCI further cautioned lawyers about confidentiality risks arising from indiscriminate use of AI platforms.It said advocates continue to be bound by their professional duties towards clients and cannot upload privileged communications, confidential instructions or sensitive legal strategies onto insecure technological platforms..On the question of safeguards, the BCI said the existing framework under the Advocates Act, 1961 is already capable of addressing misuse of AI.According to the Council, advocates who use AI irresponsibly in a manner that results in false citations, fabricated authorities, misleading submissions, breach of confidentiality or negligent pleadings may face disciplinary proceedings under Sections 35 and 36 of the Advocates Act.It further noted that the Bar Council possesses sufficient powers under the Advocates Act to issue clarifications, guidance and professional standards governing AI-assisted legal work whenever required..Judges citing fake AI-generated case laws amounts to misconduct: Supreme Court