A senior lawyer in Australia has apologized to a judge for filing submissions in a murder case that included fake quotes and nonexistent case judgments generated by artificial intelligence.

The blunder in the Supreme Court of Victoria state is another in a litany of mishaps AI has caused in justice systems around the world.

Defense lawyer Rishi Nathwani, who holds the prestigious legal title of King’s Counsel, took “full responsibility” for filing incorrect information in submissions in the case of a teenager charged with murder, according to court documents seen by The Associated Press on Friday.

“We are deeply sorry and embarrassed for what occurred,” Nathwani told Justice James Elliott on Wednesday, on behalf of the defense team.

The errors caused a 24-hour delay in resolving a case that Elliott had hoped to conclude on Wednesday. Elliott ruled on Thursday that Nathwani’s client, who cannot be identified because he is a minor, was not guilty of murder because of mental impairment.

“At the risk of understatement, the manner in which these events have unfolded is unsatisfactory,” Elliott told lawyers on Thursday.

“The ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice,” Elliott added.

The fake submissions included fabricated quotes from a speech to the state legislature and nonexistent case citations purportedly from the Supreme Court.

The AI-generated errors were discovered by the Elliot’s associates, who couldn’t find the cases cited and requested that defense lawyers provide copies, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation previously reported.

The lawyers admitted the citations “do not exist” and that the submission contained “fictitious quotes,” court documents say.

The lawyers explained they checked that the initial citations were accurate and wrongly assumed the others would also be correct.

The submissions were also sent to prosecutor Daniel Porceddu, who didn’t check their accuracy.

The judge noted that the Supreme Court released guidelines last year for how lawyers use AI.

“It is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,” Elliott said.

The court documents do not identify the generative artificial intelligence system used by the lawyers.

In a comparable case in the United States in 2023, a federal judge imposed $5,000 fines on two lawyers and a law firm after ChatGPT was blamed for their submission of fictitious legal research in an aviation injury claim.

Judge P. Kevin Castel said they acted in bad faith. But he credited their apologies and remedial steps taken in explaining why harsher sanctions were not necessary to ensure they or others won’t again let artificial intelligence tools prompt them to produce fake legal history in their arguments.

Later that year, more fictitious court rulings invented by AI were cited in legal papers filed by lawyers for Michael Cohen, a former personal lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump. Cohen took the blame, saying he didn’t realize that the Google tool he was using for legal research was also capable of so-called AI hallucinations.

British High Court Justice Victoria Sharp warned in June that providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the “most egregious cases,” perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

The use of artificial intelligence has made its way into U.S. courtrooms in other ways. In April 2025, a man named Jerome Dewald appeared before a New York court and submitted a video that featured an AI-generated avatar to deliver an argument on his behalf.

A month after that, a man who was killed in a road rage incident in Arizona “spoke” during his killer’s sentencing hearing after his family used artificial intelligence to create a video of him reading a victim impact statement. 

CEBU, Philippines — Southeast Asia’s top diplomats met Wednesday under growing pressure to push a peace plan that has so far failed to end Myanmar’s civil war, and to beat a deadline to conclude talks on a nonaggression pact with China this year.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a diverse 11-national bloc, has struggled to project unity and relevance for years. But it faced its latest setback last year when deadly fighting erupted between two members, Thailand and Cambodia, over a longtime border conflict.

Fighting ended with a ceasefire that was brokered by Malaysia and pushed through by pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened to withhold trade privileges unless they agreed. Helping sustain that fragile ceasefire is high on the agenda of the ASEAN’s foreign ministers’ annual meeting in the central Philippine city of Cebu.

The Philippines holds ASEAN’s rotating chair this year, taking what would have been Myanmar’s turn after the country was suspended from chairing the meeting after its army forcibly ousted Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically elected government in 2021.

ASEAN does not recognize the country’s military government, and its leaders are barred from attending the regional bloc’s meetings, although lower-level career diplomats have been allowed to participate.

The resulting war has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions in a crisis that has emerged as one of ASEAN’ biggest challenges and source of embarrassment as Western governments demanded the bloc to do more.

Last week, Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan said that ASEAN leaders decided in their annual summit in October not to send observers to Myanmar’s recent elections because conditions for credible polls were not met, though some member countries, like Cambodia and Vietnam, chose to do so individually.

ASEAN leaders proposed a five-point peace plan in 2021, which demanded, among others, an immediate end to fighting and hostilities, but it has failed to end the violence or foster dialogue among contending parties.

Discussion on the peace plan was a top priority in the ministerial meetings in Cebu, according to the agenda, which was seen by The Associated Press.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Theresa Lazaro, who has been designated as the ASEAN’s special envoy to Myanmar, would report to her counterparts in Cebu the result of her recent visit to Myanmar, where she met the ruling generals among other officials. She would also discuss the result of a conference of various political and ethnic groups opposed to Myanmar’s military government that she recently organized in the Philippines in a bid to reach out to all contending sides.

Participants in the Philippine conference discussed enforcement of the peace plan, “including how to advance de-escalation, facilitate humanitarian assistance, effectively address transnational crime and foster political dialogue among relevant stakeholders,” the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila said.

ASEAN foreign ministers were also under pressure to conclude negotiations with China ahead of a self-imposed deadline this year on a so-called “code of conduct” to manage disputes over long-unresolved territorial rifts in the South China Sea, where China makes expansive claims that overlap with those of four ASEAN members.

They hope to prevent the disputes, long regarded as a potential flashpoint, from degenerating into a major conflict that could drag in U.S. forces.

Washington has no claims in the disputed waters but has warned China that it’s obligated to defend the Philippines, a longtime treaty ally, if Filipino forces come under an armed attack in the offshore region.

Negotiations on the proposed code of conduct have dragged on for more than two decades without any major breakthrough in the most contentious issues, including whether such an accord should be made legally binding. But the bloc resolved to conclude the negotiations by the end of 2026 at a meeting in

Analysts say concluding the talks will be an uphill climb.

“Even with a strong political will, concluding it will remain challenging,” said Australia-based analyst Lupita Wijaya, who has done extensive research on the South China Sea.

“The central roadblock is not the pace of negotiations, but more on fundamental differences between ASEAN claimant states and China over interpretations of international law or whether the COC should be legally binding,” she said.

___

Associated Press video journalist Joeal Calupitan in Cebu, Philippines contributed to this report.