Malik v Insurance Australia Limited Proves Why Proper Legal Representation Matters More Than Ever
With the rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), the number of self-represented litigants in court matters has also increased. Individuals facing legal issues are increasingly turning to AI in place of lawyers to navigate the complex litigious process.
However, self-represented litigants need to be very careful using GenAI in place of a lawyer.
The recent NSW District court case of Malik v Insurance Australia Limited [2026] NSWDC 46 (Malik v IAL) highlights how blind usage of GenAI in complex litigation creates risk for parties, especially self-represented litigants.
Case facts
The self-represented plaintiff, Shahid Malik (Malik), and the defendant, Insurance Australia Limited (IAL) were involved in an insurance dispute.
IAL were concerned that Malik had used GenAI to prepare court documents in the case, which contained the misuse of legal principles, fake case law and misquoting of public documents.[1]
IAL also argued that a notice to produce served by Malik was defective.
The court agreed and found Malik had not complied with the court’s AI‑usage guidelines, requiring proper disclosure and content verification.[2]
As a result, the court struck out the notice to produce and ordered Malik to follow the court’s AI‑use guidelines for future document preparation, including proper declaration confirming no AI involvement in court documents like affidavits.[3]
Key takeaways
In this case, one thing is clear. Court documents cannot be prepared without legal discernment. If a user chooses to rely on GenAI, they must follow the court’s AI guidelines [4] and check that the information is accurate, legitimate and relevant to the issues in dispute. The court applies this standard consistently across all parties, holding experienced lawyers and self‑represented litigants to the same high expectations.
Without legal training or proper legal advice from lawyers, it can be difficult for individuals without training, to assess whether AI- generated content is reliable or appropriate for use in court.
As demonstrated in Malik v IAL, improperly prepared documents can be struck out, causing delay, additional cost, and further stress in an already demanding process. Poorly prepared material can also undermine a litigant’s credibility in the eyes of the court.
More seriously, if the court concludes that the information provided is misleading, it may treat the conduct as an attempt to obstruct justice. That can result in findings of misconduct, financial penalties, and, in some circumstances, even criminal liability.
Successful litigation = human involvement
GenAI cannot replace the value of an experienced litigator who can bring you peace of mind with trustworthy and competent advice.
Courts expect accuracy, sound legal reasoning, and strict procedural compliance and, GenAI alone, ought not be expected to meet these expectations.
Successful litigation requires human involvement, and our firm is here to ensure your matter is handled with the expertise, strategy, and care that only trained professionals can provide.
[1] [25].
[2] [24] & [26].
[3] Ibid.
[4] Victoria’s court issued AI guidelines differ from NSW. What is consistent throughout both is the need for AI users to verify its content.
Danielle Snell, Managing Partner & Co-Founder | [email protected] | 0401 812 885
Robert McGirr, Partner & Co-Founder | [email protected] | 0413 944 023
Article co-authored by Annie Cai, Paralegal at Elit Lawyers