UK judge warns of risk to justice after lawyers cited fake AI-generated cases in court

Key Points

• High Court Justice Victoria Sharp warned that lawyers in England have cited fake AI-generated cases in court and could face prosecution if they fail to verify the accuracy of their research.
• In a £90 million lawsuit involving Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 non-existent cases and in a separate housing claim five more fake cases were used, prompting referrals to professional regulators.
• Sharp noted that presenting false material may constitute contempt of court or perverting the course of justice, offenses that carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
• The judge emphasized that while AI is a “powerful technology” and useful tool, its use requires appropriate oversight and a regulatory framework to uphold ethical standards and public confidence.

LONDON (AP) — Lawyers have cited fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings in England, a judge has said — warning that attorneys could be prosecuted if they don’t check the accuracy of their research.

High Court justice Victoria Sharp said the misuse of AI has “serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system.”

In the latest example of how judicial systems around the world are grappling with how to handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in court, Sharp and fellow judge Jeremy Johnson chastised lawyers in two recent cases in a ruling on Friday.

They were asked to rule after lower court judges raised concerns about “suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked,” leading to false information being put before the court.

In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound ($120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist.

The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain.

But Sharp said it was “extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around.”

In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant’s housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had “not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened.”

The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action.

Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the “most egregious cases,” perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

She said in the judgment that AI is a “powerful technology” and a “useful tool” for the law.

“Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities,” the judge said. “Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained.”