Key takeaways
Lawyers must check AI-generated research
Using fake cases without verifying sources can lead to serious consequences.
Misuse of AI risks professional sanctions
Failing to meet ethical duties may result in fines and regulator referrals.
Courts expect accuracy and accountability
AI tools don’t excuse lawyers from their duty to act fairly and honestly.
Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) -v- The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin) has provided a cautionary tale regarding the use of AI to conduct legal research. The Court found all lawyers have a professional duty to check the accuracy of such research before using it in their professional work including its use in client advice and court submissions. Failure to do so resulted in the lawyers being flagged to the regulators, possible contempt of court proceedings and a costs order.
Sarah Forey of 3 Bolt Court Chambers and her instructing solicitors, Haringey Law Centre, were condemned for their “appalling professional misbehaviour” for using of 5 fake AI cases in support of their application for judicial review.
When the opposing party requested copies of these cases, Haringey Law Centre responded with a letter claiming that these “erroneous citations” could be easily explained. Haringey Law Centre asserted they were not obliged to provide an explanation as the use of these fake citations were “merely cosmetic errors” and suggested the opposition had raised these issues “to avoid undertaking really serious legal research.” Haringey Law Centre agreed to correct the citations, but this never occurred.
Mr Justice Richie was, however, unable to prove that the cases were generated by AI. When challenged, Ms Forey advised that she kept a list of photocopied cases in a box and had dropped the cases into the application to be used in legal submissions. The Court rejected her explanation given these cases do not exist as “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……………… In relation to negligence, I am unsure, but I consider that it would fall into that category if Ms Forey obtained the text from AI and failed to check it.”
Criticism was also raised against the solicitor at Haringey Law Centre for failing to check Ms Forey’s work was correct and her unprofessional conduct in their letter when questions were raised about the possibility of the use of fake cases. The Court stated “these were not cosmetic errors, they were substantive fakes and no proper explanation has been given for putting them into a pleading………This sort of behaviour should not be left unexposed. It undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the Bar.”
The Court found that the barrister breached her professional responsibilities to act fairly and not mislead the Court in using these cases. Overall, the behaviour and conduct of Ms Forey and the solicitor at Haringey Law Centre was found to be improper, unreasonable and negligent for knowingly misleading the Court.
A wasted costs order was made against both lawyers in the sum of £2,000 + VAT each, as well as £5,000 of Haringey’s Law Centre fees were written off. Both lawyers were also ordered to self-report their conduct to the relevant professional regulator.
The case was also considered further at the Divisional Court alongside a second case: Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC & Anor [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), which concerned a damages claim for £89.4 million for alleged fraud. The solicitor was similarly ordered to self-refer to the SRA after 18 out of 45 cases cited in Court correspondence and witness statements were found to be fake.
The Court gave a general warning to the legal profession:
“Our overarching concern is to ensure that lawyers understand the consequences (if they did not before) of using artificial intelligence for legal research without checking that research by reference to authoritative sources. This court’s decision not to initiate contempt proceedings…is not a precedent. Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction.”
AI is rapidly evolving and its use and application in the legal profession is becoming more widespread. These cases, however, raise concerns not about the use of AI, but rather the obligation for lawyers providing legal services to understand their professional and ethical obligations, as well as their duties to the Court when using AI. This is an evolving field, which is currently being considered by a working group established by the Civil Justice Council who are proposing amendments to procedure rules. It is therefore likely updated guidance will be provided in the near future for the legal progression and their professional responsibilities.