Fake AI Citations: UK Court Warns Lawyers of Severe Penalties

AI Use and Legal Responsibility: A High Court Ruling

The High Court of England and Wales has issued a directive emphasizing the need for lawyers to implement more robust safeguards against the improper application of artificial intelligence within their professional practice.

Unreliable Legal Research with Generative AI

A recent judgment, consolidating two separate cases, was delivered by Judge Victoria Sharp. She asserted that generative AI platforms, such as ChatGPT, are demonstrably incapable of performing dependable legal research.

Judge Sharp explained that while these tools can generate responses that appear logically structured and convincing, these responses may ultimately be factually inaccurate.

The court found that AI-generated responses can present assertions with a high degree of confidence, despite these assertions being demonstrably false.

Professional Duty to Verify AI-Generated Information

The ruling does not prohibit the utilization of AI tools by legal professionals in their research endeavors.

However, it explicitly states that lawyers have a professional obligation to meticulously verify the accuracy of any AI-assisted research by cross-referencing it with established and authoritative legal sources before incorporating it into their work.

Increased Scrutiny and Guidance for Legal Professionals

Judge Sharp highlighted a concerning trend: an increasing number of instances where lawyers – including those representing prominent AI companies in the United States – have presented what appear to be AI-fabricated falsehoods to the court.

Consequently, she stated that greater efforts are required to ensure adherence to existing guidance and to guarantee lawyers fulfill their duties to the court.

This judgment will be circulated to relevant professional organizations, including the Bar Council and the Law Society.

Examples of AI-Related Errors in Legal Filings

One case involved a lawyer representing a plaintiff in a damages claim against two banks.

The lawyer submitted a filing containing 45 citations, of which 18 were nonexistent.

Furthermore, numerous other cited cases either lacked the attributed quotations, failed to support the arguments presented, or were entirely irrelevant to the application’s subject matter.

In another instance, a lawyer representing an evicted tenant cited five cases that could not be located.

While the lawyer denied using AI directly, she suggested the citations might have originated from AI-generated summaries encountered through search engines like “Google or Safari.”

Potential Consequences of Non-Compliance

Although the court opted not to pursue contempt proceedings in the latter case, Judge Sharp emphasized that this decision should not be considered a precedent.

She warned that lawyers who fail to uphold their professional responsibilities in this regard face the risk of significant penalties.

Both lawyers involved in these cases have either been referred to or voluntarily contacted professional regulatory bodies.

Judge Sharp clarified that the court possesses a range of powers to address breaches of duty, including public reprimands, cost imposition, contempt proceedings, and even referral to law enforcement.