Do you have a friend who is extremely confident in their views but often way off the mark? With the arrival of generative artificial intelligence, it is arguable that we all now have one.
But just how much do AI chatbots know about New Zealand law? The Supreme Court last month issued a warning to those who might decide to rely on ChatGPT instead of qualified legal counsel:
“In submissions filed in this Court, Mr Jones cited a number of authorities which appear to have been hallucinated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) application. Misuse of AI in legal proceedings has serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system. Persons filing submissions in court must ensure all authorities referred to are genuine and correctly cited…Reliance on false citations, including the unverified outputs of AI applications, may in serious cases amount to obstruction of justice or contempt of court.”
Within the legal profession, it is old news that generative AI can – and does – “hallucinate” legal authority from time to time. The judiciary has issued guidelines to both lawyers and non-lawyers about the use of generative AI which have been in place for over two years now.
Getting the basics right
However, lawyers and non-lawyers alike assume that it can get the basics right. This too may be a false assumption. Type into Google the prompt “How long do I have to file a statement of defence in ordinary proceedings?” and the output is currently as follows:
“AI Overview
In New Zealand, you usually have
25 working days to file a statement of defence in ordinary proceedings after being served with a statement of claim and notice of proceeding. This applies to the District Court, and the specific deadline is outlined in the notice of proceeding served on you.”
This overview links to the Ministry of Justice website and appears reliable. However, if you cross reference this information against the source, the High Court Rules provide at rule 5.47 that, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the time within which the statement of defence is required to be filed is “30 working days” and not 25.
The error may be that AI has not considered recent changes to the High Court Rules which became effective on 1 January 2026.
Personal anecdotes
Personal anecdotes are coming in thick and fast: the clients who went to file court proceedings drafted by AI and had these rejected by the registry for non-compliance, the clients who approach their lawyers having relied on certain “advice” to their detriment.
So, what is the reality? The legal profession can be a cautious adopter of new technology but in this case, it is rightfully so. Many larger firms, including Lane Neave, are cautiously exploring the use of legal-specific AI as a support tool for legal work – placing strong emphasis on human oversight and professional responsibility to ultimately ensure the information is reliable.
Many tasks are more automated and streamlined than ever before. Legal research – the process of understanding the results of hundreds of earlier cases on a given topic – is becoming a more manageable exercise. However, the adoption of AI is still a work in progress. A human eye, experience and judgement are still needed to sense check outcomes and delete hallucinations. There is a pathway to more efficient and cost-effective service, but it still requires significant human input.
It is also important to understand that an assessment and summary of the law forms only part of an effective lawyer’s toolkit. Commercial acumen, negotiating skills, and a deep appreciation of the complexity (and limitations) of the law are all critical attributes of a high-performing lawyer.
The extent to which all professions may one day be replaced by artificial intelligence is a hot topic and the subject of much debate. In 2026, we can say with confidence that AI is not yet reliable legal counsel.*
*We know that you will use it anyway and are, of course, happy to provide you with a “second opinion” on your complex legal questions.
