Category Uncategorized

"So, how pervasive is the problem? Is it growing, or are we counting loudly reported outliers? Let's look at each year and focus on the position before Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) ("Ayinde") and what has happened since. "

“While [attorney] has not admitted to using AI to prepare the briefing in this case, we find that to be a reasonable conclusion based upon our review of the briefing, the response to the rule to show cause, and [attorney] past conduct. We emphasize it is not the use of AI itself that is concerning; rather, it is the apparent failure to thoroughly review the work-product therefrom before submitting it to this court. See id. ¶ 131”

“…In this case, HMRC was put to the trouble of having to investigate the existence of the purported decisions relied upon by the Respondent.  Fortunately, they did so. Depending on the circumstances, there may be occasions when the opposing party or the tribunal are not able to discover the errors relied upon.  There may be others where an adjournment is required to investigate or address the inaccurate information…”

“While Defendants do not seek reconsideration of the Opinion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), we wish to bring to the Court’s attention a series of errors in the Opinion—including three instances in which the outcomes of cases cited in the Opinion were misstated (i.e., the motions to dismiss were granted, not denied) and numerous instances in which quotes were mistakenly attributed to decisions that do not contain such quotes—so that the Court may consider whether amendment or any other action should be taken…”

“The court must determine an appropriate sanction. Fabricating legal authority is serious misconduct that demands a serious sanction.  In the court’s view, it demands substantially greater accountability than the reprimands and modest fines that have become common as courts confront this form of AI misuse. As a practical matter, time is telling us – quickly and loudly – that those sanctions are insufficient deterrents. In principle, they do not account for the danger that fake citations pose for the fair administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial system. And in any event, they have little effect when the lawyer’s client (here, an Alabama government agency) learns of the attorney’s misconduct and continues to retain him.”

“…What I envision and what I've suggested and what I'm hoping will be picked up by government in a discernible period of time is the provision of legal advice online so that you will, first of all, probably use a legal advice chatbot, an AI-driven tool, which by the way works incredibly well. I've tried them myself, and I had a legal problem myself, and I went to a solicitor and I got the answer. Then I thought, ‘Gosh, I'm talking all the time about AI, I think I should just see whether the same answer comes off my ChatGPT.’ And I went into ChatGPT, I asked the question, I got the same answer, but for rather less money…”

"As identified in Ayinde (including in the Appendix setting out domestic and overseas examples of attempts to rely on fake citations), fabrication of citations can involve making up a case entirely, making up quotes and attributing them to a real case, and also making up a legal proposition and attributing it to a real case even though the case is not relevant to the legal proposition being made (for instance, it deals with a completely different issue or area of law). It is not, however, fabrication to make an honest mistake as to what a court held in a particular case or to be genuinely mistaken as to the effect of a court’s judgment. In any event, it does not matter whether fabrication was arrived at with or without the aid of generative artificial intelligence. I therefore need to consider what if any sanction is appropriate.”

Phillip Johnson (BL0/0559/25)

"I am significantly concerned about the last three types. Reading and accurately interpreting judgments is inherently complex. I've spent years carefully analysing and re-analysing judicial decisions, recognising distinctions, and developing my interpretation of what is expressed. Colleagues frequently interpret judgments differently, leading to legal challenges and subsequent reviews by higher courts. The creeping presence of AI hallucinations in this interpretative process presents an unresolved challenge."

"...We are troubled by the citation of bogus cases in the trial court's order. As the reviewing court, we make no findings of fact as to how this impropriety occurred, observing only that the order purports to have been prepared by Husband's attorney..."

"Even more outrageously, a review of Youngblood’s reply brief demonstrates that it too includes fabricated quotes and misrepresents case law. In other words, when accused of a serious ethical violation, attorney [B] chose to double down. This is very troubling. The Court views [B]’s conduct as a clear ethical violation of the highest order."