Pietermaritzburg law firm under fire for “non-existent” case studies

A Pietermaritzburg law firm has come under fire after apparently using “non-existent” case studies generated from an Artificial Intelligence (AI) application in court proceedings.

This was heard during the handing down of judgment in a leave to appeal application in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Wednesday.

The law firm, Surendra Singh and Associates, was representing South African politician and business tycoon Philani Godfrey Mavundla, who took the KZN MEC of Cooperative Government and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) and Independent Electoral Commission, as well as two others, to court.

This comes after he had been elected mayor of the Umvoti Local Municipality and thereafter suspended last year.

Mavundla thereafter obtained an interim interdict against the municipality. However, when the matter went to court, the interdict was discharged and suspension remained.

He thereafter approached the high court for leave to appeal the ruling.

According to the judgment, which was handed down in the leave to appeal application, Mavundla’s legal representative, S Pillay from the law firm, had provided case studies, including “Pieterse v The Public Protector”, that apparently did not exist.

Judge Elsje-Marie Bezuidenhout said during the course of writing the judgment, it came to her knowledge that the case reference or citation for “Pieterse” might be incorrect.

“I checked my notes and asked the chief stenographer to listen to the recording, but this was the exact reference provided by Ms Pillay. There is no such case reported in the South African Law Reports, nor in the All South African Law Reports, and no reference to such a case could be found on the website of the South African Legal Information Institute, referred to as ‘SAFLII’.

“I requested the two law researchers employed at the Pietermaritzburg High Court to peruse the supplementary notice of appeal and to provide all the cited cases to me. Of the nine cases referred to and cited, only two could be found to exist, albeit that the citation of one was incorrect,” she said.

Judge Bezuidenhout said she had serious concerns and wanted to afford Pillay an opportunity to provide the authorities she relied on.

She said an email was sent to Pillay requesting that copies of the two cases referred to in argument as well as the cases cited in the supplementary notice of appeal be provided.

“Both she and Mr De Wet (senior counsel), who represented the first respondent (KZN MEC of COGTA), appeared before me on September 20, 2024. Ms Pillay applied for an adjournment as she had been unable to obtain the cases in the limited time available. I informed her that I could not find the cases she referred me to in court and that it appeared that the cases did not exist.

“She contended that the case references were provided to her by the ‘article clerk’, Ms Rasina Farouk, employed by the firm, and that she had not had sight of the cases as she was ‘overbooked’ and working under a lot of pressure.

"It then came to light that the clerk, these days referred to as a candidate legal practitioner, was the person who drafted the supplementary notice of appeal,” she said.

Judge Elsje-Marie Bezuidenhout said she requested Pillay to make arrangements for Farouk to attend court to explain the origin of the cases cited in the supplementary notice of appeal.

“She (Farouk) duly appeared before me and upon being questioned she indicated that she obtained the cases referred to from law journals by doing research through her so-called Unisa portal.

“I asked her which law journals specifically and she could not respond. She requested an opportunity to go back to the office to look at her search history and to provide the relevant cases to me. I asked her if she by any chance used an Artificial Intelligence application such as ChatGPT to assist with her research but she denied having done so,” she said.

Judge Bezuidenhout said she informed them that she would stand the matter down to enable them to go to the high court library and draw the relevant cases.

“They could simply bring the actual law reports into court. Upon resumption of the matter, Mr Suren Singh, the proprietor of the firm, appeared in court. He had not been present earlier. He indicated that it was not possible to obtain copies of the cases I required as the librarian wanted him to pay for the copies, which he was not willing to do.

“He indicated that they needed time to provide me with the relevant copies of the cases cited. I indicated to him that it would be difficult to do so, as the cases did not exist. He insisted that they had in fact already found one of the cases during the adjournment on one of his employees’ cellphone, namely the ‘Citibank case’ and that he just needed time to provide me with all the cases,” she said.

Judge Bezuidenhout said the cellphone was handed up to her to show the reference to a Competition Tribunal matter with reasons for a judgment.

“I agreed to adjourn the matter to September 25, 2024, to provide Mr Singh and his staff with a final opportunity to provide the cases cited in court at the hearing and in the supplementary notice of appeal. I indicated that I would only accept cases from either the South African Law Reports, All South African Law Reports or SAFLII.”

Judge Bezuidenhout said on September 25, during his appearance, Singh indicated that as an “elderly practitioner”, he had some difficulty in obtaining all the cases referred to but that he tried his best to do so, using “Google”.

“His firm apparently did not have access to either the South African Law Reports or the other sources previously referred to. No mention was made of the law journals his candidate attorney, Ms Farouk, allegedly sourced the cases from.

“When referring to the previous hearing, he indicated that Ms Farouk now felt that she had been placed under undue duress when she had to appear before me, which appearance he submitted was uncalled for. I reminded him of the court’s oversight when it comes to issues that arise from the conduct of its officers,” she said.

Judge Bezuidenhout said the public’s faith in the legal system was a condition for the rule of law.

“The conduct of lawyers can diminish the legitimacy of the legal system. It is for this reason that the court has oversight over the conduct of its officers. The public must be able to trust their lawyers will act ethically and with integrity. If the public cannot trust their lawyers, they must trust that the court will not hesitate to act. This is such a case, in which the court is requested to act to redeem a breach of the public’s trust in the legal system,” she said.

Judge Bezuidenhout ordered that costs incurred in respect of the additional appearances be paid by the firm and a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Legal Practice Council in KwaZulu-Natal for its attention and further action.

“When pressed on costs being paid by his firm, he submitted that he has a small firm which should not be mulcted for the additional costs incurred. He reiterated that he stood by Ms Farouk but also did not want to admit to any wrongdoing or take responsibility for her actions.

“I am of the view that Mr Singh unfortunately had no understanding of how serious the actions of Ms Pillay and Ms Farouk were, and that it simply could not be brushed aside as an oversight or mistake, especially when there had been no full disclosure of the source of the cases cited and where there had been an apparent failure of supervision of Ms Farouk’s work,” she said.

She further dismissed Mavundla’s leave to appeal with costs.

POST