A Toronto lawyer faces a potentially career-ending crisis, accused of a stunning breach of professional ethics. Mary Hyun-Sook Lee, a veteran of the legal profession, is now embroiled in both a misconduct proceeding and criminal contempt of court allegations – all stemming from the use of artificial intelligence.
The trouble began last May during an estates case before Justice Fred Myers. The judge noticed something deeply unsettling: the legal citations in Lee’s submitted materials led to nonexistent cases, or worse, cases entirely unrelated to the argument at hand. A suspicion quickly formed – something was fundamentally wrong with the research.
Justice Myers immediately questioned the validity of the presented information, warning that a ruling based on fabricated legal precedent would be a catastrophic failure of the justice system. He demanded an explanation, setting the stage for a dramatic unraveling of events.
Initially, Lee claimed a student in her office had used ChatGPT to prepare the brief, attributing the false citations to AI “hallucinations.” She expressed shock and pledged to undergo further training on the risks of AI in legal work, seemingly accepting responsibility for a lapse in oversight. The judge, swayed by the publicity and her apparent remorse, offered a degree of leniency.
But the story didn’t end there. An investigation by the Law Society soon commenced, and Lee’s narrative began to shift. In a stunning admission to the court last September, she confessed that her earlier statements were untrue.
The truth, as revealed in Justice Myers’ decision, was far more damaging. Lee admitted she had personally used ChatGPT to draft portions of the document, including the initial legal research. Crucially, she had failed to independently verify the AI-generated citations, leading to the inclusion of fabricated case law.
Her initial deception, she explained, stemmed from “fear of the potential consequences and sheer embarrassment.” She acknowledged that misleading the court, even unintentionally at first and then deliberately to conceal her actions, fundamentally undermined the integrity of the judicial process. It was a complete reversal, a desperate attempt to mitigate the damage.
Justice Myers was deeply troubled by this revelation. He ordered Lee back to court to explain why she shouldn’t be held in contempt – now on two separate grounds: the initial use of AI without proper verification, and the subsequent attempt to mislead the court about her involvement.
Despite initially representing herself, Lee argued that she had since implemented an AI usage policy in her office and that her sincere apology should be sufficient. The judge, however, remained unconvinced. He described the case as “very unusual,” noting he had found no precedent for a lawyer admitting to deliberately misleading a court in a contempt proceeding.
Lee has now retained legal counsel, and a contempt hearing is scheduled for later this spring. Simultaneously, the Law Society Tribunal has initiated its own conduct proceedings against her. The implications of this case extend far beyond a single lawyer’s career, raising critical questions about the responsible integration of AI into the legal profession and the paramount duty of candor to the court.
