Citation of Fake Cases - Will they never learn?!

It has been widely reported that there were multiple instances in the US where fake cases were cited in court due to over reliance on ChatGpt. There has also been a recent incident where something similar happened in our courts.

With all this happening, one would think that caution should be exercised when referencing cases. Apparently not!

In a recent decision of the Kings Bench Division in the UK, 5 fake cases were again cited. When challenged, neither barrister or solicitor acknowledged their culpability. Instead, they merely said it was “minor citation errors”. Unbelievable!

This was what the High Court had to say about their conduct.

“[64] I now come to the relevant test. Has the behaviour of Ms Forey and the Claimant's solicitors been improper, unreasonable or negligent? I consider that it has been all three. It is wholly improper to put fake cases in a pleading. It was unreasonable, when it was pointed out, to say that these fake cases were "minor citation errors" or to use the phrase of the solicitors, "Cosmetic errors". I should say it is the responsibility of the legal team, including the solicitors, to see that the statement of facts and grounds are correct. They should have been shocked when they were told that the citations did not exist. Ms Forey should have reported herself to the Bar Council. I think also that the solicitors should have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I consider that providing a fake description of five fake cases, including a Court of Appeal case, qualifies quite clearly as professional misconduct.”

Check out the analysis at paragraphs 51-65 of the judgment.

See grounds of judgment here:

https://tinyurl.com/d9amy94r