The case may represent the first time a lawyer in Canada has been suspended partly due to their AI use
The Law Society Tribunal temporarily barred a Toronto lawyer from practising law on Thursday, in what may be the first case in Canada of a lawyer having their licence suspended partly due to their reliance on AI-hallucinated case law.
Mary Hyun-Sook Lee, also known as Jisuh Lee, will have her license to practise law suspended for six months starting July 17. The tribunal, which hears misconduct, licensing, and fitness to practice cases for legal professionals in Ontario, also ordered Lee to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario, which informed Lee last summer that it was investigating her conduct.
In its brief order, the tribunal found that Lee had violated multiple professional conduct rules outlined by the LSO by relying on a factum “containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an artificial intelligence tool” and later lying to the court about not using the tool. The tribunal said these actions resulted in the lawyer failing to serve her client, deliberately misleading a court, and failing to act with honour and integrity.
The order comes a little over a month after the tribunal told another lawyer, Shahryar Mazaheri, to pay the LSO $31,150 for relying on AI-hallucinated materials to challenge his license suspension.
Unlike with Mazaheri v. Law Society of Ontario, the tribunal has not published reasons explaining the sanctions against Lee as of Thursday afternoon. Courtready.ca cofounder Tom Macintosh Zheng says that while Lee’s case seems to represent “the first time that a Canadian regulator has suspended a lawyer's license as a sanction for… AI misconduct” – a sentiment echoed by University of Ottawa Faculty of Law professor Amy Salyzyn – the absence of reasons from the tribunal makes it unclear as to the exact conduct the sanctions are responding to.
The tribunal’s order states that Lee violated professional conduct rules by both relying on hallucinated materials and later lying that she had not used ChatGPT to prepare her submissions in an estate matter.
“That’s why I think we ought to be careful before concluding that business using AI equals six months of suspension by the law society,” Zheng says. “There are other issues… like the dishonesty, that may very much play a factor into why the tribunal ordered these sanctions, which of course would be cleared up if and when the law society tribunal issues its reasons.”
One lesson that lawyers can take away from Lee’s case is to be careful when using AI tools, Zheng says. But another lesson concerns what he calls “the duty of candour.”
The case demonstrates “what ought to happen from a professional obligation perspective, if there is an accusation that one relied on non-existent cases or AI hallucinated cases,” the lawyer adds. “I think the answer and the lesson there is you have to be honest, and you have to disclose, you have to come clean as quickly as possible.”
Other proceedings concerning Lee’s misconduct are ongoing. Last year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice referred Lee to Ontario’s attorney general for criminal contempt proceedings after she admitted to the court that she had lied about not using ChatGPT.
Lee told the court her misrepresentations had been “made out of fear of the potential consequences and sheer embarrassment at having to admit my solitary responsibility for this grave lapse in judgment.”
A spokesperson for the LSO said Thursday that the tribunal case and the matter with the attorney general are separate proceedings. The spokesperson said Thursday’s tribunal decision “speaks for itself” and declined to comment further.
Lee and her counsel in the tribunal matter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
