AI in the courtroom: a timely reminder for the Caribbean Bar
The judgment on 30th April 2025 in CV2023-04039 Nexgen Pathology Services Ltd v Darceuil Duncan is already sparking debate across the legal profession.
In a trenchant passage, James J condemned the reliance on “non-existent” authorities—apparently drawn from an unchecked AI search—and stressed that “irresponsible use of internet sources or generative AI tools undermines not only individual cases but also the credibility of the legal system as a whole.”
This judgment is a timely reminder that while generative AI can sharpen our research pencils, it can just as easily ink in “hallucinations”. The Court condemned the citing of non-existent authorities that appear to have been lifted wholesale from an unverified AI search, and has referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee under s 37(2) of the Legal Profession Act.
The decision lands barely two months after the Caribbean Court of Justice issued Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 on the Use of Generative AI. The CCJ expressly prohibits AI-generated content in affidavits and witness statements and reminds practitioners that every citation must be independently verified. It also empowers courts to demand disclosure of any AI assistance and to impose costs sanctions for non-compliance.
Together, these developments mark a watershed for the Caribbean bar: AI can enhance speed and insight, but only when tempered by rigorous human oversight and ethical safeguards.
Pollonais, Blanc, de la Bastide & Jacelon advocates the use of legal-tech innovation, but never at the expense of professional integrity. We remind all fellow practitioners that while we as a profession embrace training, to ensure attention is placed on governance so that use of generative AI augments, rather than erodes, the high standards on which our clients and the Courts rely.
The future of law is intelligent; but, as the Nexgen judgment reminds us, it must never be blindly artificial.
