Lawyers involved in the use of fake legal citations generated by AI have avoided contempt of court proceedings, but the High Court will refer them to their respective regulators.
Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division, and Mr Justice Johnson presided over two cases that involved the "actual or suspected use" of generative AI tools to draft legal submissions or witness statements.
In Frederick Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey, the court stated: "Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities. Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained." The judgment emphasized that lawyers using AI for legal research must "check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources" to avoid damaging public confidence and the justice system.
In Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank, Abid Hussain of Primus Solicitors admitted to using legal research from his client without verifying the authorities. Dame Sharp described this as a "lamentable failure to comply with the basic requirement to check the accuracy of material that is put before the court." She further stressed: "A lawyer is not entitled to rely on their lay client for the accuracy of citations of authority or quotations that are contained in documents put before the court by the lawyer. It is the lawyer’s professional responsibility to ensure the accuracy of such material. We are satisfied that Mr Hussain did not realise the true position."
Although the threshold for contempt was not met in Hussain’s case, he self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), and the High Court will refer him as well. In Ayinde’s case, pupil barrister Sarah Forey, instructed by Haringey Law Centre, included fake citations potentially created using AI in her written arguments. The judgment considered two possibilities: she either knowingly inserted false authorities (a clear contempt) or lied under oath about not using AI.
The court concluded: "In all the circumstances, we consider that the threshold for initiating contempt proceedings is met." However, contempt proceedings will not be initiated against Forey due to her junior status. Instead, the case is being referred to the Bar Standards Board (BSB).
The judges made clear: "This court’s decision not to initiate contempt proceedings in respect of Ms Forey is not a precedent. Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction." Forey had already self-referred to the BSB and was also referred by another judge.
In contrast, Victor Amadigwe, a solicitor also at Haringey Law Centre, was found not to have knowingly submitted false material. However, his "inadequate" response after being made aware of the issue led to a referral to the SRA. The judgment concluded that current professional guidance on AI is inadequate. "More needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court," the judges said. Copies of the judgment will be sent to the Bar Council, the Law Society, and the Council of the Inns of Court for urgent action.
Ian Jeffery, Chief Executive of the Law Society, commented: "This High Court judgment lays bare the dangers of using AI in legal work. We need to ensure the risks are properly addressed. The Law Society of England and Wales has already provided guidance and resources to the legal profession. We will continue to develop and expand them as part of our wider programme of supporting members with technology adoption."
More News: News & Blog Page
Source: Bianca Castro, The Law Society Gazette
