We surveyed 1,715 legal professionals across 10 Asia-Pacific markets. 94% now use AI in everyday legal work - but only 58% work under an AI policy, and barely half measure the value it delivers. The...
Six checks before AI-assisted research reaches the court file. A free one-page checklist for New Zealand lawyers, drawn from the Supreme Court’s 2026 judgments and the Courts of New Zealand GenAI Guidelines.
Six checks before AI-assisted research reaches your legal advice. A free one-page checklist for in-house legal teams in New Zealand, drawn from the Supreme Court’s 2026 judgments and the Courts of New Zealand GenAI Guidelines.
Four requirements for a defensible AI position: New Zealand sources, citations verified against authority, an audit trail, and a named human who signed off. Free whitepaper.
Four requirements for a defensible AI position, for the in-house teams you advise and for your own practice: New Zealand sources, verified citations, an audit trail, and a named human who signed off. Free whitepaper.
A one-page checklist for New Zealand lawyers. Tool-neutral, in the order you would actually do them, drawn from what the Supreme Court and the Courts of New Zealand GenAI Guidelines require.
In February 2026, the Supreme Court recorded that a litigant had cited authorities which appeared to have been hallucinated by an AI application. The Court warned that misuse of AI in legal proceedings has serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system, and that reliance on unverified citations may, in serious cases, amount to obstruction of justice or contempt. That litigant was self-represented. The duty the Court described sits more heavily on an admitted lawyer, not less: Rule 13.1 makes the lawyer’s overriding duty in litigation a duty to the court.
Download the checklist
One page. No cost. Yours to circulate inside your firm.
The risk is not only invented cases. In Jones, the Court identified citations that paired real case names with incorrect references, and four genuine cases were misused to support propositions they did not stand for. In May 2026, in Chen v Goodmore Investments (NZ) Ltd, the Supreme Court refused leave in four applications and recorded that many of the authorities relied on were irrelevant or did not exist, appearing to be hallucinations of a generative AI application. Costs of $2,500 were awarded to each respondent.
The professional exposure is already mapped. The New Zealand Law Society’s guidance states that improper, negligent or incompetent use of generative AI could lead to a serious breach of the Conduct and Client Care Rules, including rule 3 (competence), rule 10.9 (misleading and deceptive conduct) and rule 13.1 (the duty not to mislead or deceive the court). The Courts of New Zealand GenAI Guidelines for Lawyers, issued on 7 December 2023, put this into operational terms: lawyers are responsible for the accuracy of what they put before the court and must check any information—including citations—provided by a GenAI chatbot before using it.