Skip to content

Incident Tracker / Australia

Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95

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

In one of Australia's first AI-citation cases, a solicitor before the Federal Circuit and Family Court cited non-existent Federal Court authorities and fabricated tribunal quotes generated by ChatGPT. Judge Skaros found the conduct fell short of competence and diligence standards and directed that it be referred to the NSW Office of the Legal Services Commissioner.

Court
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
Date
2025-01-31
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
ChatGPT
Conduct
A solicitor filed an application and submissions citing Federal Court authorities that do not exist and fabricated quotes from an Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision, generated with ChatGPT and not verified. Judge Skaros found the conduct fell short of the standards of competence and diligence expected of a legal practitioner.
Outcome
Regulatory referral
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
NSW Office of the Legal Services Commissioner: The Principal Registrar was directed to refer the solicitor's conduct to the NSW Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. (2025-01-31)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
Not separately recorded

What was fabricated or misused

  • Murray v Luton [2001] FCA 1245 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Mackinlay v MIMA [2002] FCA 953 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Bavinton v MIMA [2017] FCA 712 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Gonzalez v MIBP [2018] FCA 211 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Seng v MIAC [2013] FCA 1279 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Kahawita v MIEA [1993] FCA 870 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • MIAC v Thiyagarajah [2016] FCA 19 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Heath v MIMA [2001] FCA 700 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v AAT [2004] FCA 1241 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • MIMA v Ameer [2004] FCA 276 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Woods v MIMA [2001] FCA 294 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • MIAC v Wu [2015] FCA 632 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Drummond v MIMA [2008] FCA 1774 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Walters v MIBP [2016] FCA 953 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Lao v MIMA [2002] FCA 1234 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Alfaro v MIBP [2016] FCA 1156 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Wai v MIBP [2016] FCA 1157 — non-existent Federal Court decision
  • Alleged quotes from the Tribunal's decision in paragraphs 1.2, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2 — did not exist

What the court said

“This judgment concerns the conduct of the applicant’s legal representative (the ALR) which involved the filing of submissions with the Court that contained citations of authorities and quotes alleged to be from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) (as it then was) which do not exist.”
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), [1]
“The ALR stated that he had used AI to identify Australian cases, but it provided him with non-existent case law.”
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), [10]
“He accessed the site known as ChatGPT, inserted some words and the site prepared a summary of cases for him.”
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), [22]
“There is a strong public interest in referring this conduct to the regulatory authority in NSW given the increased use of generative AI tools by legal practitioners.”
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), [37]

Timeline

  1. Administrative Appeals Tribunal made the decision under judicial review.
  2. Originating application for judicial review was filed.
  3. Applicant filed an amended application under Registrar's orders.
  4. Applicant's outline submissions containing false cases and quotes were filed.
  5. Minister's outline identified seventeen non-existent Federal Court decisions.
  6. Directions hearing addressed the solicitor's AI use and citation checks.
  7. Court directed referral of the solicitor's conduct to the OLSC.

Why this case matters

Valu goes beyond Dayal in the Australian records. Dayal involved a solicitor tendering a list of fake authorities in a family-law hearing; Valu added fabricated quotations from the client's own Tribunal decision in a migration judicial-review matter. Judge Skaros anonymised the solicitor but still referred the conduct to the NSW regulator. The judgment also ties AI misuse to two separate duties: competence in filed submissions and the rule against communicating with the court about substance without copying the opponent.

Practice note

A migration filing should be checked against the official Tribunal decision and each Federal Court authority before it is filed. Quotes should be copied from the decision text, with paragraph references, and every case should be opened in a recognised database. If a correction is needed, the lawyer should copy the opponent or seek consent before emailing chambers about substance.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

Similar incidents on the record

  • Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965; 2025 ONSC 67852025-12-04 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice · Regulatory referralIn Ontario, lawyer Jisuh Lee filed a ChatGPT-fabricated factum, then admitted she had lied about authorship after initially blaming others. Justice Myers referred a criminal-contempt prosecution to Ontario's Attorney Ge…
  • Mezu v. Mezu (Md. App. Ct. 2025), No. 361 Sept. Term 20252025-10-29 · Appellate Court of Maryland · Regulatory referralMaryland's intermediate appellate court referred an attorney to the state Attorney Grievance Commission after his client's brief cited multiple fictitious ChatGPT-generated cases and he conceded he routinely did not rea…
  • MS (Professional conduct, AI generated documents) Bangladesh, [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC)2025-08-12 · Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) · Regulatory referralBefore the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), barrister Muhammad Mujeebur Rahman cited a fabricated Court of Appeal case, Y (China), drafted using ChatGPT without verification. The tribunal, led by its Pre…
  • Mavundla v MEC: Department of Co-Operative Government and Traditional Affairs, KZN (7940/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 22025-01-08 · High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg · Regulatory referralIn this KwaZulu-Natal High Court (South Africa) leave-to-appeal ruling, the applicant's papers cited non-existent authorities generated via ChatGPT by a candidate attorney and unchecked by counsel. Bezuidenhout J called…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Valu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95”, safelegalai.com/tracker/valu-v-minister-immigration (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →