TL;DR
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
South Korea’s National Court Administration reported that about 80% of responding civil, family and administrative judges had encountered false or nonexistent legal citations. The survey records judges’ experiences, not the share of court filings containing fabricated material; officials say they plan to propose procedural law changes, including a legal basis for fines.
South Korea’s National Court Administration said a survey of 360 judges found that about 80% of responding judges handling civil, family and administrative cases had encountered false or nonexistent legal precedents in court filings. The findings, published November 2, have prompted calls among judges for rules to address fabricated citations, including possible fines and disclosure of AI use.
The survey was conducted from October 6 to 16 among judges at courts of all levels. The court administration’s Judicial Support Office said AI-generated errors can produce citations to nonexistent precedents and create an unnecessary verification burden for opposing parties, potentially slowing trials. The results measure what judges recalled encountering; they do not establish how many filings contained false material.
Among judges who reported encountering false citations, 196 (80.7%) identified precedents that did not exist, while 159 (65.4%) identified real precedents cited with false content. The survey allowed multiple answers. It also recorded reports of false or nonexistent statutes and academic works. The figures’ denominator matters: the “about 80%” finding applies to responding civil, family and administrative judges, rather than all 360 respondents. A report by Kyunghyang Shinmun put the all-respondent figure at 243 of 360, or 67.5%.
Judges said the material was submitted by both litigants and legal professionals. 164 judges (69.5%) selected parties acting on their own, and 136 (57.6%) selected lawyers representing or defending parties. These are responses about who submitted the cited material, not a finding that those people knowingly fabricated it. The court administration’s examples included AI-generated judgments imitating Supreme Court formatting, case numbers attached to reasoning that could not be located, and real rulings whose holdings had been altered or misrepresented.
Pressure for Rules on Court Filings
The survey points to a practical problem for courts: checking a citation can take time even when a judge or opposing party can eventually establish that it is false. Fabricated authorities may also make it harder to assess a legal argument and can undermine confidence in documents submitted to court. The administration said such citations can hinder the speedy progress of trials.
Judges’ preferred responses indicate that the issue is not limited to whether a person used an AI tool. The most frequently selected options were a legal basis for fines (61.4%), a duty to verify citations (61.1%) and a duty to disclose AI use (60.6%). Those figures describe preferences in the survey, not policies already adopted. Any new rules would need to address responsibility for false citations while distinguishing deliberate misconduct from mistakes and making clear what verification is expected.
The reports that lawyers as well as self-represented parties submitted false material give the issue wider reach than a problem confined to people representing themselves. The survey does not determine how often lawyers used AI or whether the cited errors were intentional. It does, however, suggest that court procedures and professional practice may both be involved in responding.
Products Worth Considering
Bose TV Speaker (2nd Gen) Compact Soundbar
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Bluetooth Noise-Cancelling Over-Ear Headphones, Black
Apple Watch SE 3 GPS Smartwatch, 40mm
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Survey Measured
The survey was released by the National Court Administration, the administrative arm of South Korea’s Supreme Court. Its four-page Korean-language announcement described judges’ experiences with citations of AI-generated false precedents and similar material. The administration said these citations can burden the opposing party with verification and impede trial progress.
The headline figure needs to be read with its population and denominator attached. The administration’s release described about 80% of responding judges handling civil, family and administrative cases as having encountered false or nonexistent precedents. The all-respondent count reported by Kyunghyang Shinmun was 243 of 360. The survey did not publish how many judges were invited, and the source material does not provide the exact wording of the questions. It therefore cannot show how representative the respondents were of all Korean judges.
The court administration plans to propose changes to South Korea’s Civil and Criminal Procedure Acts to permit fines, according to the source material. The issue has also arisen in other legal systems: the source describes sanctions or referrals involving lawyers in New York and London. Those examples provide comparison, but they do not establish what measures South Korea will adopt or how its rules would be enforced.
Limits of the Judges’ Responses
The survey does not estimate the share of filings containing fabricated citations, nor does it establish how many cases involved AI. It records judges’ reports of what they had seen. The administration did not state how many judges were invited, and the released material does not give the exact question wording, so response rates and the survey’s representativeness are unclear.
The figures also do not show whether false citations were submitted deliberately, generated by AI, copied from another source or caused by a different error. Selecting a category for who submitted material is not proof of intent or misconduct. The survey’s categories allowed multiple answers, so the counts should not be treated as mutually exclusive groups.
A translation discrepancy also appeared in an English-language report. Yonhap’s English version, republished by The Korea Herald, said 164 judges had cited false precedents themselves. The Korean wording in the court administration’s release identifies the parties themselves as the source of the filings. The available source material indicates that the English wording was a translation error, not a finding that judges submitted the citations.
Proposed Changes to Court Procedure
The National Court Administration plans to propose revisions to the Civil and Criminal Procedure Acts that would provide a legal basis for fines, according to the source material. The survey announcement itself does not establish that lawmakers have approved such changes or specify when a proposal will be submitted.
Further details are needed on how any rules would define a false citation, what verification and AI-disclosure duties would require, and what process would apply before a fine could be imposed. The next concrete developments to watch are the administration’s formal proposals and any response from lawmakers, courts and legal professional groups. Until then, the survey provides evidence of judges’ reported experiences and policy preferences, but not a count of fabricated citations across South Korean court filings.
Key Questions
What did the survey find?
The National Court Administration said about 80% of responding judges handling civil, family and administrative cases had encountered false or nonexistent legal precedents. The figure describes judges’ reported experiences, not the proportion of court filings containing false citations.
How many judges took part?
360 judges from courts at all levels answered the survey between October 6 and 16, 2026. The court administration did not state how many judges were invited.
Did the survey show that lawyers used AI to fabricate citations?
No. Judges reported that both parties and lawyers had submitted false material, but the survey did not determine whether it was produced with AI, whether its use was intentional, or how often lawyers used AI.
What rules are being considered?
The National Court Administration plans to propose changes to civil and criminal procedure laws that would allow fines. Survey respondents also favored citation-verification and AI-disclosure duties, but the survey does not mean those rules have been adopted.
Source: Thorsten Meyer AI
