“I consider that it would have been negligent for this barrister, if she used AI and did not check it, to put that text into her pleading,” says Mr Justice Ritchie
A High Court judge has issued a scathing ruling after multiple fictitious legal authorities were included in court submissions.
The case concerned a homeless claimant seeking accommodation from Haringey council. Things took a sharp turn when the defendant discovered five “made-up” cases in the claimant’s submissions.
Although the judge could not rule on whether artificial intelligence (AI) had been used by the lawyers for the claimant, who had not been sworn or cross examined, he also left little doubt about the seriousness of the lapse, stating: “These were not cosmetic errors, they were substantive fakes and no proper explanation has been given for putting them into a pleading” said Mr Justice Ritchie, adding: “I have a substantial difficulty with members of the Bar who put fake cases in statements of facts and grounds.”
He added:
“On the balance of probabilities, I consider that it would have been negligent for this barrister, if she used AI and did not check it, to put that text into her pleading. However, I am not in a position to determine whether she did use AI. I find as a fact that Ms Forey intentionally put these cases into her statement of facts and grounds, not caring whether they existed or not, because she had got them from a source which I do not know but certainly was not photocopying cases, putting them in a box and tabulating them, and certainly not from any law report. I do not accept that it is possible to photocopy a non-existent case and tabulate it.”
Judge Ritchie found that the junior barrister in question, Sarah Forey of 3 Bolt Court Chambers, instructed by Haringey Law Centre solicitors, had acted improperly, unreasonably and negligently. He ordered both Forey and the solicitors to personally pay £2,000 each to Haringey Council’s legal costs.
Certainly the judge’s warning will echo across the profession:
“It would have been negligent for this barrister, if she used AI and did not check it, to put that text into her pleading.”
This case has sparked discussion on social media. Writing on LinkedIn, Adam Wagner KC of Doughty Street Chambers commented on the judgment, noting that while the court didn’t confirm AI was responsible for the fake cases, “it seems a very reasonable possibility.” Wagner added:
“A.I. can be a time saver, especially if you don’t really know where to start (as sometimes happens in law!), but the key lesson is that A.I. should only ever be the *starting point* of a research or drafting task.”
The case emphasised that responsibility for accuracy lies with lawyers. This news comes after judges received refreshed guidance on spotting AI-generated submissions last month. Meanwhile, the SRA approved the first ‘AI-driven’ law firm — which claims their AI cannot propose caselaw, to avoid hallucinations.
(
(
