LLW2601 2025 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEM 1 2025 LLW2601 2025
DISCLAIMER
THE DOCUMENT PRESENTED IS A DEMOSTRATION ON HOW STUDENTS CAN
APPROACH THE ASSIGNMENT FOR LLW2601. IT IS BASED ON PRESCRIBED
MATERIAL AND EXTERNAL RESEARCH. THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS BOTH SHORT
NOTES AND A RESPONSE EXAMPLE FOR EACH QUESTION. STUDENTS ARE
THEREFORE ADVISED NOT TO COPY AND PASTE BUT USE THE DOCUMENT AS A
RESEARCH GUIDE THAT WOULD HELP THEM DRAFT THEIR OWN FINAL COPIES.
, LLW2601 2025 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEM 1 2025 LLW2601 2025
1. Mr Lampert: “Counsel, can you please explain to me what the
employment law consequence of Ms Goolam’s use of GenAI to draft
the report is? (4)
Mr. Lampert, Ms. Goolam's use of GenAI to produce the report is probably
going to be viewed as workplace misconduct under employment law. The
following is what the sources suggest:
✓ The use of unapproved tools, such as Generative Artificial
Intelligence (GenAI), for work-related tasks is prohibited by
workplace regulations set forth by the Ministry of Tertiary Education
(MTE).
✓ As a "Senior Executive Research Specialist," Ms. Goolam is
expected to create reports and conduct research for the MTE.
✓ According to the investigative report, her submitted report
comprised "largely baseless information made up by GenAI,"
including fictitious sources, and was partially (about 35%) created
using GenAI.
✓ It would be considered misconduct to use GenAI in a way that
violates the MTE's standards, as this would be a violation of a
workplace regulation.
Workers are impliedly obligated to perform their jobs with diligence and
competence. It can be considered a breach of this obligation to submit a
report that contains false information produced by artificial intelligence
(AI), particularly when using such tools is forbidden.
If an employee knew, or could have reasonably been expected to know,
about the rule, they could be disciplined. Ms. Goolam was probably aware
of this rule because of her senior position and the Minister's remarks
regarding the ban on using authorised instruments.0717513144
DISCLAIMER
THE DOCUMENT PRESENTED IS A DEMOSTRATION ON HOW STUDENTS CAN
APPROACH THE ASSIGNMENT FOR LLW2601. IT IS BASED ON PRESCRIBED
MATERIAL AND EXTERNAL RESEARCH. THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS BOTH SHORT
NOTES AND A RESPONSE EXAMPLE FOR EACH QUESTION. STUDENTS ARE
THEREFORE ADVISED NOT TO COPY AND PASTE BUT USE THE DOCUMENT AS A
RESEARCH GUIDE THAT WOULD HELP THEM DRAFT THEIR OWN FINAL COPIES.
, LLW2601 2025 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEM 1 2025 LLW2601 2025
1. Mr Lampert: “Counsel, can you please explain to me what the
employment law consequence of Ms Goolam’s use of GenAI to draft
the report is? (4)
Mr. Lampert, Ms. Goolam's use of GenAI to produce the report is probably
going to be viewed as workplace misconduct under employment law. The
following is what the sources suggest:
✓ The use of unapproved tools, such as Generative Artificial
Intelligence (GenAI), for work-related tasks is prohibited by
workplace regulations set forth by the Ministry of Tertiary Education
(MTE).
✓ As a "Senior Executive Research Specialist," Ms. Goolam is
expected to create reports and conduct research for the MTE.
✓ According to the investigative report, her submitted report
comprised "largely baseless information made up by GenAI,"
including fictitious sources, and was partially (about 35%) created
using GenAI.
✓ It would be considered misconduct to use GenAI in a way that
violates the MTE's standards, as this would be a violation of a
workplace regulation.
Workers are impliedly obligated to perform their jobs with diligence and
competence. It can be considered a breach of this obligation to submit a
report that contains false information produced by artificial intelligence
(AI), particularly when using such tools is forbidden.
If an employee knew, or could have reasonably been expected to know,
about the rule, they could be disciplined. Ms. Goolam was probably aware
of this rule because of her senior position and the Minister's remarks
regarding the ban on using authorised instruments.0717513144
