Man writes submission with ChatGPT, cites 14 fictitious cases in bid for personal protection order against ex-wife

A family court magistrate has dismissed a man's application for a personal protection order (PPO) against his ex-wife after finding that he cited 14 fictitious cases generated by ChatGPT, CNA reported.

Upon further questioning, the self-represented man confessed that he had used the generative AI tool to search for local legal precedents as he sought a PPO for himself and his two daughters against his former spouse.

However, he did not verify the cases before adding them to his submissions, and said he was unaware of the family court's guide on the use of Gen AI tools by court users.

In a judgment made available on Sept 10, Magistrate Soh Kian Peng noted that the guide emphasises that court users are responsible for all content in their court documents, and must ensure that any AI-generated information submitted is accurate and relevant.

Consequences for non-compliance may include adverse cost orders or the court disregarding the materials submitted.

Dispute over daughters' access arrangements

The former spouses returned to court after their divorce to seek PPOs for themselves and their two daughters against each another.

The dispute centred on access arrangements for their daughters. The father was reportedly "frustrated" by what he perceived as the mother's attempts to deny him access despite an existing court order.

Meanwhile, the mother felt her actions were justified, believing that she and the children were threatened by his behaviour during his access periods, the court noted.

In written submissions, the father referenced outdated and inapplicable provisions of the Women's Charter. He also cited 14 cases that he claimed were comparable to his situation.

Magistrate Soh pointed out that some of the cited cases were "quite obviously fictitious", while others appeared legitimate "at first blush" but ultimately were not.

No family violence committed, says magistrate

The two main incidents forming the basis of the PPO applications by the former spouses occurred in early March this year.

The magistrate, however, reviewed closed-circuit television footage (CCTV) which showed the pair engaged in a "tug of war over their eldest child".

He found that neither parent had committed family violence against the other. But while neither acted aggressively, the father appeared "visibly more frustrated than the mother," added Magistrate Soh.

He said that their actions were "less than ideal" given their child was caught in the middle, but neither parent crossed the line into physical, emotional, or psychological abuse.

He also noted that neither parent was likely to commit family violence against their children, recognising that each cared for them in their own way.

Although the court ultimately dismissed all PPO applications filed by both father and mother, the father was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs to the mother.

AI tools may be used, but must be declared

To prevent the use of "AI-hallucinated" material in court, Mr Soh ordered the man to declare in writing whenever he uses generative AI to prepare documents for future submission. He must also confirm that he has followed the relevant court guidelines.

Magistrate Soh explained that this order does not prohibit the man from using generative AI. Such tools may still be used, but the user must make the necessary declarations when preparing court documents.

He considered this approach to strike a "fair balance between allowing the use of generative AI and ensuring that the court is not taken by surprise by the product of AI hallucinations."

The magistrate stressed that citing fake or AI-generated cases can have a "deeply corrosive effect" on the legal system. "If there is a suspicion that the cases, or paragraphs from cases cited are not genuine, then time and effort will have to be spent checking the provenance and authenticity of the material which had been cited."

He emphasised that being self-represented does not exempt a party from the responsibility of ensuring that the information submitted to the court is accurate.

The magistrate added that he was heartened by the parents' efforts to resume counselling to improve access arrangements and encouraged them to "stay the course".