An Edmonton student-at-law is in hot water after Alberta’s legal regulator found he used artificial intelligence to draft an appeal of an earlier suspension.
Manraj Tiwana was suspended for 20 months last year after the Law Society of Alberta found he was taking clients without telling his articling supervisor.
When Tiwana appealed the decision, he found himself facing an even sterner rebuke after admitting he drafted his submissions using AI, which cited a “hallucinated” case that did not actually exist.
“While we appreciate that Mr. Tiwana was candid in admitting his use of AI, he did not seem to grasp the gravity of misusing it in this way, particularly in this setting, where he is arguing that his discipline was too harsh and his prospect for recovery is good,” the seven-member appeal panel wrote in its March decision.
The misuse of AI to write his submissions, and in particular his reliance on a hallucinated case in his submissions, suggests otherwise.”
‘Abject dishonesty’
In 2022, the law society received complaints that Tiwana had been taking off-the-books clients unbeknownst to the lawyer serving as his principal. Tiwana accepted payment from the clients personally, without telling them his principal was being kept in the dark about the arrangement.
The law society investigated but was delayed “because Mr. Tiwana repeatedly misled the investigators,” the appeal panel wrote.
In 2025, the then-35-year-old pleaded guilty to six disciplinary charges and agreed to a 20-month suspension — a punishment the hearing panel said was “as lengthy as it gets short of disbarment.” It also ordered him to pay $18,000 in costs. While Tiwana initially agreed to the suspension — which a seasoned defence lawyer hashed out with the law society — he later appealed, arguing it was too harsh. This time, Tiwana represented himself.
According to the decision, a lawyer for the law society contacted Tiwana ahead of the appeal because she could not find a case cited in his submissions. Tiwana responded it was a “placeholder.” It turned out the case had been made up by an unspecified AI tool.
The panel ultimately rejected Tiwana’s appeal, finding no legal problems with his earlier guilty plea. The panel reasserted a 20-month suspension was appropriate for someone who displayed “abject dishonesty” and made “long-running” attempts to deceive investigators.
The panel also gave little credence to Tiwana’s claim he didn’t understand what a 20-month suspension meant.
“He seems to suggest he was not aware, at the time of his plea, that when the 20 months was served he would have to apply for admission or reinstatement, and the result of that application was uncertain,” the panel wrote. “He also suggests he was not aware that, in that process, his credentials may have by then expired.”
“These submissions, when made by a party represented before the hearing committee by experienced defence counsel, are difficult to accept when there is no allegation or evidence that his counsel was ineffective or failed to advise him.”
‘Haphazard approach’
Tiwana’s use of AI was not the only problem during the appeal hearing.
He also repeatedly referred to a Law Society of B.C. case “which had no relevance at all to this matter” and did not support any of positions he claimed it did, the panel said.
When asked for the case’s citation and “style of cause” — the legal name of the case — “Mr. Tiwana struggled to understand what that meant,” the panel added.
The panel ultimately decided Tiwana should pay full costs of the appeal hearing.
“In considering what level of indemnity is required, and what costs burden would be fair, we find the most important factor in this case is Mr. Tiwana’s conduct of the appeal, including his haphazard approach to attempting to adduce new evidence, and, more troubling, his conduct in briefing and arguing the appeal,” the panel wrote.
Attempts to reach Tiwana, who is not listed in the provincial lawyer directory, were not successful.
Re: Unusual and Bizarre Uses and Behaviors of AI
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks