If you’re a lawyer and regularly use the internet, chances are you’ve heard about Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2766, a recent Ontario case that has become a focal point on integrating artificial intelligence (AI) in the courtroom.
During the May 1, 2025, motion hearing, Justice Myers identified several issues with a factum submitted by Ms. Jisuh Lee, counsel for the Applicant. For example, Ms. Lee included references to several non-existent or fake precedent cases and relied on two such cases in her oral submissions before the court.
During the hearing, Ms. Lee admitted that her office may have used AI to assist in preparing the factum. Accordingly, Justice Myers required Ms. Lee to show cause as to why she should not be held in contempt of court. To learn more about the hearing, check out Part 1 of our blog series.
Recent Developments
On May 16, 2025, the matter was again before Justice Myers at a scheduling conference, Ko v. Li, 2025 ONSC 2965. In her written and oral submissions, Ms. Lee made a candid admission that she had utilized AI technology in preparing the factum she submitted to the court.
Recognizing the potential implications of her admission, Ms. Lee offered a formal apology to the court. She expressed regret for not fully verifying the AI-generated content before submission, acknowledging the importance of maintaining accuracy and integrity in legal documents.
To address this oversight, Ms. Lee proposed several corrective measures. For example, a commitment to implementing a more rigorous verification processes for AI-generated content and enhancing her team’s training on the ethical use of technology in legal practice.
Ms. Lee’s apology was met with a measured response from the court as Justice Myers withdrew the previously issued show cause order, deeming it satisfied.
Justice Myers stated that the conference accomplished all purposes of addressing contempt in the face of the court at a show cause hearing. Justice Myers further noted that the goals of such a hearing were also met; for example, promoting honourable behaviour by counsel before the court.
This decision reflects the court’s recognition of the complexities involved in the integration of AI into legal practice and its willingness to address these challenges constructively. The court’s approach further emphasizes a balanced consideration of the circumstances, focusing on corrective actions rather than punitive measures.
Balancing Technology and Professional Standards
The court further recognized the public shaming Ms. Lee suffered near the end of her unblemished career as a result of her admission, acknowledging this experience prompted her swift and forthright response, achieving a far greater impact than a potential minor.
This aspect of the case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of verifying AI-generated content. While AI can assist in drafting and research, lawyers must create a comprehensive review process to ensure their work product is reliable, accurate, relevant, and consistent with ethical guidelines and legal requirements.
In conclusion, the lessons from Ko v. Li remind us that while AI can be a powerful tool in legal practice, it does not diminish the responsibility of lawyers to maintain professional standards. AI serves as an aid to, rather than a substitute for, the nuanced and critical thinking that defines our profession.
Thanks for reading,