Ad/Marketing Communication
This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns AI Law.
Introduction
I initially planned to attend the High Court on Friday to observe proceedings in the widely discussed false legal citations cases and hear the court’s queries. However, I couldn’t make it, so I turned to the Law Society Gazette’s coverage. They’ve posted two thought-provoking pieces that provide a glimpse into what occurred.
- R (Ayinde) v LB Haringey: read the comments here.
- Alharoun v Qatar National Bank Q.P.S.C. and QNB Capital LLC: the linked case is discussed here.
I appreciate the authors for highlighting these events. At this point, I’ll hold back on further comment until we have more from the High Court. The article raised plenty of questions, and I’m interested to see how the High Court addresses them.
Another Issue: Judges Referencing False Legal Citations?
I want to highlight something that’s perhaps flown under the radar here: what happens when judges mention these fake cases in their judgments, even just as cautionary tales?
From reviewing the case tracker, I’ve noticed that many judges choose not to reprint these false legal citations in their rulings, precisely to avoid giving them more exposure. Consider the insight from Judge Wilner on 5 May 2025, in the Lacey v State Farm decision:
“… I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist. That’s scary. It almost led to the scarier outcome (from my perspective) of including those bogus materials in a judicial order. Strong deterrence is needed to make sure that attorneys don’t succumb to this easy shortcut” (Page 10)
However, this view does not seem to be shared. Some judges have indeed cited fabricated authorities. I won’t repeat the false legal citations here to prevent further circulation, but if you look at the case tracker you will see them produced in several cases including: Ex parte Allen Michael Lee (page 2), Williams v. Capital One Bank (page 15) and the UK High Court case above Ayinde (para 50 – 57).
While this practice seems well-intentioned, beneficial, and informative, there are also potential downsides I’d like to explore. But let’s first consider the benefits.
5 Reasons Why Judicial Recording of False Legal Citations Might Actually Strengthen Legal Standards
- Educational Value: judicial references to fabricated cases offer lawyers clear, memorable examples of citation errors to avoid. It may also be useful to see the patterns in fabricated cases.
- Transparency: mentioning false authorities demonstrates courts’ openness about citation problems, highlighting their seriousness and encouraging professional accountability.
- Deterrence: public judicial criticism of false legal citations discourages lawyers from taking similar shortcuts by making the consequences clear and visible.
- Judicial Record: officially documenting fake authorities provides evidence of citation misconduct, useful for identifying patterns and supporting disciplinary actions.
- Historical Awareness: recording judicial discussions of fabricated cases preserves valuable insight into emerging challenges such as AI-generated misinformation, keeping the legal community alert to new risks.
5 Reasons Why Judicial References to False Legal Citations Might Undermine Legal Certainty
However, there are also significant problems that arise from citing these false authorities, which I will outline below:
- Perpetuating the Problem: embedding these false legal citations into the legal record risks normalising them. Once included in official judgments, they may be indexed in databases or used in research tools, inadvertently spreading misinformation.
- Risk of Confusion: other lawyers, researchers, or even automated tools could fail to spot the judge’s note that these authorities were false. They might erroneously accept these citations as legitimate, thereby distorting legal analysis.
- Increased Workload: judges and clerks might find themselves spending additional time verifying whether a citation is real. This can slow the administration of justice, especially if it becomes commonplace for false legal citations to appear in reported cases.
- Undermining Judicial Reputation: if judges include made-up authorities, it could reflect poorly on the judiciary. Even if quickly corrected, any appearance that a court relied on or repeated an incorrect source can weaken public confidence.
- Normalising false legal citations: if judges regularly discuss and print fabricated cases, even critically, it may unintentionally signal that citation misconduct is widespread or tolerated. Frequent mentions could desensitise practitioners to the severity of the issue, inadvertently lowering standards and normalising poor citation practices.
Conclusion
On balance, while judges quoting false legal citations within their judgments can offer educational value and serve as effective deterrents, I am concerned that the potential negatives generally outweigh these benefits. The primary concern is the significant risk of misinformation becoming embedded within legal databases, inadvertently legitimising false citations. Over time, this misinformation could erode judicial integrity and lead to confusion or mistakes among future litigants and researchers, ultimately undermining confidence in the legal system.
While transparency and deterrence remain crucial, these objectives could arguably be accomplished without explicitly referencing specific non-existent cases. For instance, judges could address the problem broadly, clearly describing the issue of false legal citations without giving detailed examples that might propagate misinformation. Adopting a more cautious approach would still effectively warn lawyers against citation misconduct, but with significantly less risk of normalising or perpetuating citation inaccuracies.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Do the educational benefits justify the risks, or should judges refrain entirely from referencing false legal citations in their judgments? The discussion continues on LinkedIn and my Substack and don’t forget, subscribe to my newsletter here for more insights and updates on emerging AI legal challenges.
