On Tuesday the Supreme Court of Tasmania threw out a parole condition because the document justifying it cited case law that does not exist. The Parole Board has conceded its own secretary wrote that document with AI. Tasmania already had a twenty-page AI policy, approved two years and two days before the ruling, and it had warned that inappropriate use of AI in decision making could expose a decision to judicial review for being unreasonable or denying procedural fairness. Those are the court's grounds.

In the same week in Los Angeles, a lawyer defending the insurer State Farm was fined $999.99 over briefs with fabricated citations, and her own apology to the court referenced her firm's generative-AI policy. Two continents, two written policies, two documents of invented law that reached the person who signs. The policy was in the binder. The work was in the room.

In this episode, Stephen Forte covers:

• Hobart. The board's rationale cited fictitious cases and, in counsel's words, "argued forcefully." The board withdrew the condition in August and declined to say why. The court found it legally unreasonable and a denial of procedural fairness.
• The policy that predicted it. Approved 13 September 2024 for every agency in the state, it told officials to critically examine AI outputs and warned that inappropriate use "may expose the decision to the risk of legal challenge, including judicial review," for being "improper, unreasonable" or denying "procedural fairness."
• The remedy. The Attorney-General is writing to the board's chair, wants assurances, and has told the justice department to remind every employee to comply with the policy. Told the policy had not worked, the state reminded everyone about the policy.
• Los Angeles, the control case. The lawyer accepted responsibility in her own words and listed three mechanical steps: retrieve every authority from a real database, check every quotation against the opinion, audit citations before filing. Her firm had a policy too.
• Policy versus control. A policy is a letter addressed to people who were already going to behave. Every company has a fire policy in a binder; the sprinkler in the ceiling has never consulted it.
• The mirror. When the board asks whether AI is under control, you will reach for a document. Reach for the check: what has to happen before a confident, well-formatted, completely invented paragraph reaches the person who signs.

A note on specifics: no individual is named; the Tasmanian document is guidance in form and is what the state calls its AI policy; nothing here is a view on the underlying conviction, which the woman concerned has always contested.

Sources:

• ABC News, 15 September 2026. Report
• ABC News, 16 September 2026. Report
• Tasmanian Government AI guidance, approved 13 September 2024. PDF
• ABA Journal, 15 September 2026. Report

The AI Brief from the YPO Technology Network is a daily executive briefing on the AI developments that matter to business leaders. Hosted by Stephen Forte.