In a striking development from England, legal professionals have come under scrutiny for presenting counterfeit cases in court, generated by artificial intelligence. A High Court justice has cautioned that attorneys might face legal consequences if they fail to verify the accuracy of their legal research meticulously.
Justice Victoria Sharp emphasized the potential ramifications that the misuse of AI could have on the justice system, stressing its impact on public trust. The matter reflects a broader global challenge for judicial systems attempting to navigate the burgeoning role of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. Recently, Sharp, along with fellow judge Jeremy Johnson, reprimanded lawyers involved in two separate cases.
The intervention stemmed from concerns raised by lower court judges about lawyers allegedly deploying generative AI tools to draft legal arguments or witness statements which then, sometimes, remain unverified. This practice has resulted in erroneous information being presented in court.
Highlighting these occurrences, Justice Sharp recounted a 90 million pound ($120 million) case concerning an alleged breach of a finance agreement with Qatar National Bank. Remarkably, a lawyer cited 18 fictitious cases in this legal dispute. The client, Hamad Al-Haroun, expressed regret for misleading the court with false information derived from AI tools widely available to the public, accepting the responsibility himself rather than his solicitor, Abid Hussain. Nonetheless, Sharp found it troubling that the lawyer depended on the client for research accuracy, contrasting the expected roles.
A similar instance unfolded in another case, whereby a lawyer referenced five non-existent cases in a housing dispute against the London Borough of Haringey. While barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, Justice Sharp noted the absence of a coherent explanation for these inaccuracies.
Both lawyers involved were referred to professional regulators, although no further drastic measures were implemented at this stage. Justice Sharp warned that presenting false information as legitimate could amount to contempt of court or, in severe scenarios, perverting the course of justice — a serious offense that might result in life imprisonment.
In her judgment, Justice Sharp acknowledged AI as a “powerful technology” and “useful tool” in legal contexts. However, she stressed the importance of appropriate oversight and a regulatory framework to govern its use, ensuring adherence to professional and ethical standards. “Artificial intelligence brings with it risks even as it presents opportunities,” she stated, underscoring that safeguarding public confidence in the justice system necessitates a balanced and cautious approach to AI utilization in legal practices.