Professional website of Matthew Lee (Barrister, England & Wales). Ad/Marketing communication not legal advice. No Public/Direct Access. Instructions via clerks see contact details below.
Professional website of Matthew Lee (Barrister, England & Wales). Ad/Marketing communication not legal advice. No Public/Direct Access. Instructions via clerks see contact details below.
The Government AI Hallucination Tracker examines instances where false, fabricated, or legally unreliable material (often called “hallucinations”) appears within official government policy documents, consultation papers, reports, and legislative materials. This includes both AI-generated hallucinations and non-AI citation errors, such as invented case law, misquoted judgments, inaccurate statutory references, or misleading factual claims.
“…AI tools are now being used to produce fake material, including text, images and video. Courts and tribunals have always had to handle forgeries, and allegations of forgery, involving varying levels of sophistication. Judges should be aware of this new possibility and potential challenges posed by deepfake technology”
AI Guidance for Judicial Office Holders
“… 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”
Judge Wilner - Lacey v State Farm
The AI Equality, Bias and AI Discrimination Case Tracker focuses on court and tribunal cases involving equality, bias, and discrimination linked to the use of AI. It highlights both the challenges and opportunities that AI brings to equality law, capturing examples where AI systems have contributed to unfair outcomes as well as where they have been used to promote fairness, accessibility and inclusion.
The Judicial AI Use Tracker monitors how judges are using AI and records any official guidance, commentary, or policy developments on judicial use.
This tracker captures both the benefits and challenges of AI in judicial contexts ranging from tools that enhance efficiency, consistency, and access to justice, to cases and discussions highlighting risks. It aims to provide a balanced picture of how AI is shaping judicial reasoning, case management, and evidence assessment.
“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)
AI hallucination cases can, and do, reach real courtrooms and have real consequences. However, there is some dispute about the correct phrasing of this phenomenon:
“…Although the termed used in relation to erroneously generated references by Al is "hallucinations", this is a term which seeks to legitimise the use of Al. More properly, such erroneously generated references are simply fabricated, fictional, false, fake and as such could be misleading...”
JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen (No 3) [2025] FCA 976 (Federal Court of Australia, 19 August 2025)