Struck off
A registered foreign lawyer who used AI-generated false and misleading case citations while defending himself against disciplinary charges has been struck off.
Abhishek Kumar turned to generative AI to help draft his response to proceedings brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), only for the tech to spit out misleading quotations and incorrect legal authorities. After the errors were flagged by the regulator, Kumar used AI again to help prepare an explanation, which itself contained further errors.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found that Kumar had failed to properly check the material he was putting before both the regulator and the tribunal, describing his culpability for the AI-related misconduct as “very high”.
The 41-year-old had originally been referred to the tribunal following a criminal conviction for knowingly employing a person who was not legally entitled to work in the UK. He became a registered foreign lawyer in 2018.
The individual at the centre of the criminal case had previously been Kumar’s immigration client and later carried out administrative work while being paid cash in hand despite having no right to work in the UK. Kumar was convicted in 2024 and received a 12-month community order together with 150 hours of unpaid work.
When the SRA brought disciplinary proceedings, Kumar filed a written response containing incorrect and misleading case citations. Some of the citations were wrong or pointed to unrelated cases, while other authorities did not support the points he was making.
Kumar admitted that he had used generative AI to assist with drafting the document. But when the SRA highlighted the problems and asked for an explanation, he again used AI to help prepare his response, resulting in yet more errors.
He told the tribunal that he had not intended to mislead anyone and argued that the mistakes reflected incompetence and poor judgment rather than dishonesty or a lack of integrity. Kumar also said he was accustomed to working under supervision and did not have the expertise needed to properly verify the AI-generated output.
The tribunal didn’t agree. It said Kumar was a regulated lawyer who was obliged to comply with professional standards and remained responsible for the accuracy of his work.
The SDT found that Kumar had used AI “without giving any proper thought to the consequences” and had failed to take adequate steps to check whether the material it produced was reliable. It also placed significant weight on the fact that he used AI a second time when responding to the mistakes created by his first use of the technology.
The tribunal said the repeated failure to verify submissions had serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the legal profession.
It stressed that Kumar would have been struck off on the basis of either the criminal conviction or the AI-related misconduct alone.
He was removed from the register of foreign lawyers.
How on earth has this person managed to obtain a practising certificate?
The power of sheer audacity combined with the terrible administrative/bureaucratic mammoth that is the SRA…
The claim that Kumar was “used to working under supervision and didn’t have the expertise to verify the output” did make me giggle… what an excuse to try and flout professional obligations under… (Though clearly, Kumar is simply a professional at being dodgy).