header-logo header-logo

Hazards of gen AI & fictitious cases

11 June 2025
Issue: 8120 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Artificial intelligence , Technology
printer mail-detail
Heads of chambers and law firm partners must take ‘practical and effective measures’ to ensure every individual understands their duties if using artificial intelligence (AI), the High Court has said

Handing down judgment in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) last week, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson held that two lawyers who cited fictitious cases in separate court proceedings should not face contempt proceedings.

However, they emphasised that in future hearings ‘such as these, the profession can expect the court to inquire whether those leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled’.

They set out the range of sanctions for submitting false material— ‘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’.

In the first case, Sarah Forey, a pupil barrister, instructed by Haringey Law Centre, cited fictitious cases during a judicial review. There is no suggestion she intended to use AI or knew the cases were fake. Forey said, when drafting the grounds, she may have carried out additional Google or Safari searches without realising they included AI-generated summaries.

Emily Carter and Sahil Kher, Kingsley Napley, acting pro bono for Haringey Law Centre, said their clients ‘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. The Law Centre paralegal—referred to as a solicitor in the original judgment—was found to be “not at fault in any way”.’

In the second case, Abid Hussain of Primus Solicitors admitted relying on legal research conducted by his own client, Mr Al-Haroun, which included 18 fake cases, in an £89.4m claim against Qatar National Bank and another. Hussain apologised and referred himself to the regulator.

Ian Jeffery, CEO of the Law Society, said: ‘Whether generative AI, online search or other tools are used, lawyers are ultimately responsible for the legal advice they provide.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll