The case of Philani Godfrey Mavundla v MEC: Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal and Others might sound like just another court case. However, buried inside this judgment is a red flag for the modern lawyer. In this case, the court confirms that there is a degree of danger of leaning on artificial intelligence (AI) without double-checking the work.
In summary, the applicant’s legal team cited cases in their appeal papers that, wait for it, did not exist. The judge went looking for them in every database possible, SAFLII, law reports, you name it. Nothing. Some of the “authorities” looked suspiciously like the handiwork of an over-confident AI tool, spitting out made-up case law with a straight face (if it had a face). The court of course, was not entertained. Costs were awarded, and the matter was referred to the Legal Practice Council.
So, what is going on here? AI is making its way into law firms everywhere. Tools like ChatGPT can summarise cases, draft opinions, or generate arguments at lightning speed. That is exciting, especially when you compare it to slogging through Lexis and Juta at 2 am, trying to find the case law that the partner is convinced exists.
But here is the reality: AI is a helpful intern (consider it the paralegal), not a seasoned senior counsel. It will draft, summarise and give you something that looks impressive, but unless you fact-check it, you may end up quoting “Pieterse v Public Protector”, a case that, as the judge in Mavundla discovered, does not even exist.
Marcel Hattingh, in his article on why most AI strategies fail, makes a great point: fear and mistrust often creep in when organisations do not know how to integrate AI properly. The same applies to law. AI is not here to steal our billable hours; it is here to help us draft faster, research smarter and free up time for the strategic thinking only humans can do.
The golden rule in law is that you should always, always check. Think of AI as your eager junior who hands you a draft. You would never sign it off without reading it, right? The same applies here. Verify every case, confirm every reference. Judges expect diligence, not blind trust in AI.
Like it or not, AI is not going anywhere. It is already changing the way firms handle contracts, discovery and research. The sooner we accept that, the better. Think of it as the next step after moving from typewriters to computers. As I write this, I have never even used a typewriter.
Here is the exciting part: whether we agree or not, AI has the potential to transform how we practise law. Faster drafting means quicker turnaround times. Smarter research means fewer billable hours wasted on admin. And that shift could open doors to justice for more people, because when we spend less time stuck in paperwork, we can serve more clients at lower costs. In other words, AI could be the key to making legal services less of a luxury and more of a right. AI can be brilliant, but it can also hallucinate.
The choice for lawyers is clear: embrace AI, do not fear it. But never forget, your duty to the court (and your client) means the final responsibility is still yours. AI is the assistant. You are the lawyer.
This article was penned by Dalen Mmako and Wildu du Plessis.