Denies using AI
A former solicitor who appealed his strike-off was found by the High Court to have cited up to 27 “fake authorities” — a move that amounted to an abuse of process.
Venkateshwarlu Bandla was struck off the roll by the SRA in 2017 after it emerged that he didn’t have the correct insurance in place — despite claiming he did — and for abandoning his high street firm.
Bandla turned to the High Court to appeal the strike-off.
In a new ruling, Mr Justice Fordham found the former solicitor had cited over 50 cases — with more than half described as “non-existent”. In a witness statement, Bandla describes “endeavouring to identify and present cases bearing the closest resemblance to this appeal”.
The SRA’s research found that certain cases “did not exist.” Some cases could not be found, contained incorrect details, or did not say what Bandla claimed they did, although Mr Justice Fordham suggested that two of the 27 non-existent authorities may have been typos.
One case upon which the former solicitor relied upon had a summary recorded in the judgment. Yet neither the judge nor the SRA could locate this case. Bandla admitted he “did not write this summary himself”.
Fordham J added:
“He denied using AI or any source identifiable as AI. He claimed to have simply used a Google search for “case law in support of mental health problems”. He accepts that this case, and many other cases which he cited to this Court, do not in fact exist. He told me that he never “double-verified” them. He later accepted that he never checked them at all.
When asked why the court should not strike out his appeal for using the non-existent cases, Bandla argued that the “substance of the points which were being put forward in the grounds of appeal were sound, even if the authority which was being cited for those points did not exist”.
The judge was “wholly unpersuaded” by that. Fordham J emphasised needing to protect the court’s integrity against fake cases. He was especially vexed that the appellant was a former lawyer, and so he went ahead with striking out the appeal as an abuse of process.
The ruling separates the substantive legal judgment from “two further features” including citing fake authorities — the other being inaccurate CVs. Bandla blamed those errors on “old MS Word or due to other reason”.
(
(
