“The steps which the Court will consider taking include the initiation of proceedings for contempt of court pursuant to CPR 81.6.” Dame Victoria Sharp (President of the KBD)

“We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them unavailing, including respondents' counsel's unfounded insinuation that appellant's counsel "used ChatGPT to write [his] brief" without verifying the accuracy of cited case authorities. The court reminds respondents' counsel that, as an officer of the court, such representations must be substantiated, and without evidence, these insinuations can undermine trust and damage one's reputation (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.00] rule 3.3[a][1]). Counsel's response at oral argument when questioned about his claim was dismissive and his attempt to defend and modulate his accusatory contention was disingenuous.
Upon review of the cases relied upon by appellant, we find no support for respondents' counsel's position.”
Vanguard v 400 Times Sq

“…I consider that it would have been negligent for this barrister, if she used AI and did not check it, to put that text into her pleading.”

Mr Justice Ritchie

"Transparency, explainability, and fairness are becoming more than just regulatory buzzwords, as they’re likely to be the standards by which lenders are going to be judged in the years to come."

“...AI is already capable of providing reasonably accurate legal advice. Many of you will have tried some of the dedicated programmes offering advice on employment, property and other issues. They may be scary for lawyers, but they will not actually replace them, in my view at least, since many of the issues that arise concern the explanations that need to accompany legal advice. Persuading people to accept legal advice is a peculiarly human activity.”

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls