- within Privacy, Insurance and Law Practice Management topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Business & Consumer Services and Technology industries
What happens when a machine built to predict the next plausible word starts drafting the arguments lawyers put before a judge?
Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele dig into a landmark cautionary tale for the Canadian legal system: the UK High Court's rebuke of international firm Pinsent Masons in Cork & Anor v Smith, where a junior lawyer's 59-page AI chat produced a fabricated insolvency rule that made it all the way into a letter to the court.
The hosts widen the lens to a Quebec arbitration annulled over hallucinated case law, and to Ontario's own certification requirements for lawyers using AI.
It's an unvarnished look at professional regulation, supervision, and what "checking your work" still means in Canadian law when the shortcut sounds so convincing.
Listen For:
5:12 What actually happened in the Pinsent Masons insolvency case?
9:56 How did the AI chat transcript reveal the junior lawyer's process?
18:19 Where does AI genuinely help versus create legal research risk?
21:38 What does Ontario now require lawyers to certify about AI use?
27:23 Why do law firms need a formal policy governing AI use?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
