Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the legal profession, from document review to drafting contracts and legal research. It’s offering speed, efficiency, and a competitive edge for lawyers. However, the recent misuse of AI in the courtroom has raised significant ethical and procedural concerns.
While many are excited about what AI can do, it’s crucial to take great care when using these sorts of resources. AI tools, especially generative models, do not always differentiate between fact and fiction. That becomes a serious issue when incorrect outputs are accepted at face value.
The Recent High Court Revelation
In a recent judgment, the High Court exposed how AI-generated legal submissions cited completely fictitious cases. In the case of R. (on the application of Ayinde) v Haringey LBC and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC [2025 EWHC 1383] there were 45 case-law citations, 18 of those were fictitious. The judgment revealed that several references provided in support of an argument did not exist in any legal database.
The responsible party, reportedly relying on a large language model to support their claim, had failed to verify the citations. This lapse led to the submission of fake precedents, undermining the credibility of the case and potentially jeopardising justice.
How AI Fabricated Legal Citations Happen
This troubling phenomenon stems from a technical flaw known as “hallucination” in AI. In simple terms, hallucination refers to the generation of plausible sounding but incorrect or imaginary information by AI models.
These hallucinations occur because generative AI, like ChatGPT, predicts words based on patterns rather than factual accuracy. If asked to provide a citation that supports a legal argument, it may invent one that appears legitimate, even referencing made-up case names, judges, and court dates!
Impact on Legal Integrity and Justice
The use of false citations goes far beyond mere embarrassment. It threatens the sanctity of legal arguments, delays proceedings, and potentially damages client interests. Worse still, it erodes public trust in the legal system.
When legal professionals rely on tools that introduce misinformation, it places an undue burden on judges and opposing lawyers to identify and correct these errors. In a high-stakes environment like litigation, even minor lapses can have serious ramifications.
What Legal Experts Are Saying
As AI-generated content becomes increasingly sophisticated, courts and practitioners face an escalating challenge in distinguishing genuine evidence from manipulated or entirely fabricated material. The recent High Court exposure of fake AI-generated case citations underscores a wider risk; unless the legal profession implements robust checks, such incidents will likely become more frequent and harder to detect, posing a significant threat to the integrity of our judicial system. The key is ensuring that this technology complements and supports rather than attempts to replace legal expertise.
The Tip of the Iceberg, and a Worrying Trend
This incident, while alarming, may be only the beginning. Similar cases have surfaced in the United States, where a lawyer faced sanctions for submitting bogus cases created by ChatGPT. In Australia, concerns have been raised over AI-generated affidavits containing unverified claims.
These events highlight a growing global trend: as more legal professionals experiment with AI, the risk of error multiplies unless safeguards are established.
Challenges in Detecting Fake Legal Citations
One of the main challenges is that fabricated cases often appear highly credible. They follow standard citation formats, include plausible legal language, and even mimic real judgments. Unless double-checked against trusted legal databases, they can easily slip through unnoticed.
Smaller firms or sole practitioners, who may lack access to premium tools, are especially vulnerable. They might rely more heavily on open-source or free AI tools without realising the need for rigorous verification.
Regulatory and Ethical Considerations
Professional bodies like the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Bar Council are taking notice. There’s growing talk about updating codes of conduct to explicitly address the use of AI in legal practice.
Ethically, lawyers have a duty to maintain client trust and uphold justice. Misusing AI, even unintentionally, may breach this duty.
The question of accountability is complex. Is it the AI developer’s fault or the lawyers?
Most experts agree the onus remains on the legal professional. AI does not relieve a solicitor or barrister of their ethical duties. Proper use of technology requires vigilance, training, and professional judgment.
Future of AI in Legal Practice
Despite these challenges, AI continues to offer significant potential for positive transformation within the legal profession. With proper use and thoughtful oversight, AI can reduce administrative tasks, improve access to justice, and streamline legal research. But we must tread carefully and ensure that technology supports, rather than replaces, good legal practice.
What This Means for the Legal Profession
AI is here to stay, but it must be handled responsibly. The recent case of non-existent cases being cited in court is a wake-up call for all legal professionals.
Treat it with caution and never sacrifice accuracy for speed.
Chris has a strong background in insurance-based Civil Litigation and is Head of the Insurance Litigation department. Chris brings a sharp commercial mindset to his work, having spent time in the legal team of a major insurer and working in-house with FTSE 250 companies and international insurers. His expertise in Civil Litigation has earned him recognition in the Legal 500, and he is known for his meticulous attention to detail, commitment, and approachable client service.
Stay up to date with all our latest news.
We combine creative thinking with an unshakable commitment to your success. We focus our efforts on you.
RLK Solicitors Ltd is registered in England and Wales under company number 7189629 and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors. Regulation Authority under SRA number 522998.
