The framework for the in-house teams you advise, and for your own filings

Written for in-house legal teams, which makes it useful to a firm twice over: as the framework you take a client through, and as a test of what leaves your own practice.

On 11 February 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Jones v Family Court at Whangārei [2026] NZSC 1. A self-represented litigant had cited authorities which, the Court said, appeared to have been hallucinated by an AI application, and had misattributed propositions of law to four further cases that were genuine but wrongly cited. In serious cases, the Court said, reliance on false citations may amount to obstruction of justice or contempt of court. That was an observation about serious cases, not a finding against a lawyer.

That caution was directed to a lay litigant and reflected the standard expected of a person acting without a lawyer. A lawyer’s professional obligations arise independently under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. Rule 13.1 imposes an absolute duty of honesty to the court. It bites at the point of filing.

In each of the three New Zealand decisions the paper examines, the party relying on invented or non-existent authorities was self-represented. In a law firm, the relevant safeguard is effective supervision. The question is what review takes place before a junior’s work is filed under a partner’s name.

Who it is for

Partners, practice group leaders and knowledge or risk leads in New Zealand firms, whether the question is what the firm files or what a client is asking to be advised on.

Vendor-neutral line

The criteria are vendor-neutral. Apply them to any tool, including ours.