August is not yet over, and we have already seen around 30 alleged incidents of AI hallucinations and/or fabricated citations internationally. July alone recorded approximately 50 such incidents. I had initially hoped to review the cases monthly, but the sheer volume now requires a weekly update

"AI hallucinations are not a minor inconvenience. They are a professional risk that can catch out even the most experienced practitioners and judges. Sometimes this comes down to simple carelessness, but sometimes it is because of how convincing and subtle these errors can be, especially when we are working under the extreme pressures so common in this profession. That is why, as a profession, I believe we need to keep talking about them openly. We are all vulnerable. Even those who have told me, “I completely avoid AI,” cannot truly do so. It may appear in your instructions, in witness evidence, or in your opponent’s work, and you have a duty to recognise and address it."

"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.”