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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll