header-logo header-logo

06 June 2025
Issue: 8119 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Artificial intelligence , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Fake it till you make it

221403
In this week’s NLJ, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School, AKA The Insider, tackles the ‘infamous judicial review in which no less than five fake authorities were cited’

The chief suspect is artificial intelligence (AI). AI aside, Regan notes a general propensity for excessive wordage. He writes: ‘Too many advocates cannot resist the temptation to chuck in citations.’

He also recalls the tale of—pre-AI—a lawyer whose invented judgment—like faked Masters that hang in galleries for years—was so good that it impressed a judge. Regan also covers a recent case on costs and the upcoming agenda at the Rule Committee. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll