Skip to content

Incident Tracker / Australia

Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166

·Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)·AUOther

In Australia's Federal Circuit and Family Court, a Victorian solicitor tendered four non-existent authorities generated by the AI tool in his LEAP practice software. Judge Humphreys referred him to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, which in August 2025 barred him from practising as a principal and imposed two years of supervised practice.

Analysis
Dayal: the first time an AI misuse referral reshaped a lawyer's right to practise
Court
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
Date
2024-08-27
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
LEAP legal-practice-management AI research tool
Conduct
At a family-law property enforcement hearing, a Victorian solicitor tendered a list of four authorities that did not exist, generated by the AI tool in his practice-management software and never verified. He apologised, paid the other side's thrown-away costs, and Judge Humphreys referred his conduct to the regulator. (Underlying hearing: Handa & Mallick [2024] FedCFamC2F 957.)
Outcome
Other
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner (VLSB+C): On 19 August 2025 the VLSB+C varied the solicitor's practising certificate: he may no longer practise as a principal, cannot handle trust money or operate his own practice, may practise only as an employee solicitor, and must undertake two years of supervised practice with quarterly reporting. (2025-08-19)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-04

What was fabricated or misused

  • Four authorities in a list and summary tendered on 19 July 2024 did not exist; the judgment did not reproduce their names or citations.

What the court said

“The solicitor in question tendered to the court a list and summary of legal authorities that do not exist.”
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), [1]
“Neither he nor another legal practitioner had reviewed the output generated by the research tool to ensure the accuracy of the list of authorities and case summaries;”
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), [6]
“The solicitor has acknowledged a breach of the professional standards expected of a solicitor in this court, by his conduct in tendering a list and summary of authorities that do not exist, generated without disclosing the source of the information presented to the court and without verifying its accuracy.”
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), [18]

Timeline

  1. Solicitor tendered the AI-generated authority list at the Handa & Mallick hearing.
  2. Solicitor filed submissions on why he should not be referred.
  3. Judge Humphreys directed referral to the Victorian regulator.
  4. VLSB+C varied the solicitor's practising certificate.
  5. VLSB+C published its statement on the Mr Dayal matter.

Why this case matters

Dayal is the first record in the tracker where an AI-citation referral produced a published regulator disposition changing how the lawyer may practise. The court itself made no fine; the later order barred principal practice, trust-money work and a solo practice, and required two years of supervision. That makes it a useful comparison with JNE24 and Valu, where referrals were pending at the time of the court decision, and with Mata, where the consequence was a court sanction rather than a practice-rights restriction.

Practice note

When an AI feature in practice-management software returns authorities, the solicitor signing or tendering the document must check them personally or have another legal practitioner check them before filing. Dayal shows that non-disclosure matters too: the court recorded that the list was generated without disclosing its source and without verifying accuracy.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

Read our full analysis of this case →

Similar incidents on the record

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166”, safelegalai.com/tracker/dayal-fedcfamc2f-1166 (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →