Use of AI-generated fake cases in court could lead to sanctions, judges warn

7 June 2025, 09:47

Lawyers who use fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in court documents could face contempt proceedings or criminal investigations, judges at the High Court have said.

In a ruling on Friday, Dame Victoria Sharp said that solicitors, barristers and judges who use AI have a duty to check the accuracy of their research, and that providing false material to the court with the intention it was treated as genuine could be a contempt of court.

She added that when lawyers do not comply with their duties, “the court’s powers include public admonition of the lawyer, the imposition of a costs order, the imposition of a wasted costs order, striking out a case, referral to a regulator, the initiation of contempt proceedings, and referral to the police”.

Dame Victoria, sitting with Mr Justice Johnson, said that in the “most egregious cases” deliberately providing false material intending to interfere with the administration of justice could amount to perverting the course of justice.

The warning comes as the senior judge, sitting with Mr Justice Johnson, referred lawyers to their professional regulators due to the use of fake citations in legal documents in two cases.

AI tools have put child sexual abuse ‘on steroids’, Home Secretary warns

In one case, Sarah Forey, a barrister instructed on behalf of the Haringey Law Centre, cited five fake cases in a housing case against the London borough.

Ms Forey denied using AI and said she was a pupil barrister, claiming she had little formal supervision previously and none of her written work was checked.

The barrister accepted she had acted negligently and apologised to the court but did not accept her conduct was improper.

Dame Victoria said: “We regret to say that she has not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened.”

The judges decided not to initiate contempt proceedings against her but referred her to the regulator, the Bar Standards Board.

In a separate case, a nearly £90 million claim over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, Dame Victoria Sharp said 18 cases had been cited that did not exist.

Other cases cited did not contain the quotes that were referenced, or were irrelevant to the legal action.

Dame Victoria said the client in the case said the citations were generated by AI, with “misplaced confidence” in the authenticity of the material.

Client Hamad Al-Haroun apologised to the court and said that his solicitor Abid Hussain was not responsible.

However, the judge said: “Mr Al-Haroun’s errors do not absolve his legal representatives of responsibility…It is extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around.”

She added that it is the lawyer’s professional responsibility to ensure the material is accurate, and referred Mr Hussain to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Dame Victoria concluded: “There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused.

“In those circumstances, practical and effective measures must now be taken by those within the legal profession with individual leadership responsibilities, such as heads of chambers and managing partners, and by those with the responsibility for regulating the provision of legal services.”

Following the decisions, Emily Carter and Sahil Kher, who acted for the Haringey Law Centre, said on its behalf: “The Law Centre and the individuals concerned fully understand the seriousness of the issues that have arisen, and made full and unconditional apologies to the court.

“They are reassured that the court has found there was no basis to suggest that the Law Centre or its senior solicitor had deliberately caused false material to be put before the court.”

They continued: “The court also noted that the Law Centre is a charity operating with limited resources and providing a valuable service to vulnerable members of society.

“That said, there are important lessons to be learned for the Law Centre, and they acknowledge the court’s observation that they need to ensure that professional standards are maintained in all they do, and that they should instruct those who adhere to them.

“The Law Centre has already taken proactive measures to ensure this regrettable situation is not repeated, and intend to take further steps, including organising training and consulting any relevant guidance.”