Abstract
Rather than automatically discrediting AI-generated content, the sector—including the judiciary—needs better AI literacy, argues Dr Alan Ma
Recent judgments have signalled a growing need for clearer ethical guidance, practitioner safeguards and judicial consistency in handling AI-generated materials.
The article challenges emerging judicial tendencies to discount or discredit AI-generated content without evidentiary justification, warning of the risks of procedural unfairness and anti-innovation bias.
It proposes practical steps to help legal professionals adapt responsibly.
Recent judgments have signalled a growing need for clearer ethical guidance, practitioner safeguards and judicial consistency in handling AI-generated materials.
The article challenges emerging judicial tendencies to discount or discredit AI-generated content without evidentiary justification, warning of the risks of procedural unfairness and anti-innovation bias.
It proposes practical steps to help legal professionals adapt responsibly.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 2 |
| No. | 8135 |
| Specialist publication | New Law Journal |
| Publisher | Lexis Nexis |
| Publication status | Published (VoR) - 17 Oct 2025 |
Keywords
- AI Hallucination, AI literacy, Legal Practice, Fake Law, Judicial Suspicion
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'AI: Not all bad? From Hallucination to Harm: Fake Law, Judicial Suspicion & the Case for AI Literacy in Legal Practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver