header-logo header-logo

Hazards of gen AI & fictitious cases

11 June 2025
Issue: 8120 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Artificial intelligence , Technology
printer mail-detail
Heads of chambers and law firm partners must take ‘practical and effective measures’ to ensure every individual understands their duties if using artificial intelligence (AI), the High Court has said

Handing down judgment in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) last week, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson held that two lawyers who cited fictitious cases in separate court proceedings should not face contempt proceedings.

However, they emphasised that in future hearings ‘such as these, the profession can expect the court to inquire whether those leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled’.

They set out the range of sanctions for submitting false material— ‘costs order, the imposition of a wasted costs order, striking out a case, referral to a regulator, the initiation of contempt proceedings, and referral to the police’.

In the first case, Sarah Forey, a pupil barrister, instructed by Haringey Law Centre, cited fictitious cases during a judicial review. There is no suggestion she intended to use AI or knew the cases were fake. Forey said, when drafting the grounds, she may have carried out additional Google or Safari searches without realising they included AI-generated summaries.

Emily Carter and Sahil Kher, Kingsley Napley, acting pro bono for Haringey Law Centre, said their clients ‘fully understand the seriousness of the issues that have arisen, and made full and unconditional apologies to the court.

‘They are reassured that the court has found there was no basis to suggest that the Law Centre or its senior solicitor had deliberately caused false material to be put before the court. The Law Centre paralegal—referred to as a solicitor in the original judgment—was found to be “not at fault in any way”.’

In the second case, Abid Hussain of Primus Solicitors admitted relying on legal research conducted by his own client, Mr Al-Haroun, which included 18 fake cases, in an £89.4m claim against Qatar National Bank and another. Hussain apologised and referred himself to the regulator.

Ian Jeffery, CEO of the Law Society, said: ‘Whether generative AI, online search or other tools are used, lawyers are ultimately responsible for the legal advice they provide.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll