Consequences of Citation of Fake Cases

I recently wrote about the Ayinde case where fake authorities were cited in the UK due to improper use of AI. The Ayinde case and another, Al-Haroun, were subsequently referred to a Divisional Court to deliberate on sanctions to be imposed on the parties for introducing the misleading “authorities”.

In a recent judgment of the King’s Bench Division, Divisional Court, Dame Victoria Sharp P, examined the use of AI in court proceedings and the duties and obligations of all stakeholders, the judiciary, barristers and solicitors. The court cautioned that when lawyers failed to comply with duties to court (such as by placing false material before the court), the court’s powers would include:

1. Public admonition of the lawyer;

2. Imposition of a costs order;

3. Referral for disciplinary proceedings;

4. Initiation of contempt proceedings; and

5. Referral to police for criminal offence of perverting the course of justice.

Given the severity of sanctions available, one can only hope that lawyers would now know better than to blindly cite cases without first verifying.

This blind reliance on AI is ridiculously mind-boggling. In the Al-Haroun case, there were 45 citations which either did not exist, or did not contain the quotations attributed to those cases. What is worse is that these citations were made by the client itself and then blindly adopted by the solicitor!!

“[74] The schedule of references referred to by Dias J lists forty five citations that had been put before the court. In eighteen instances, the case cited does not exist. In respect of those cases that did exist, in many instances they did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application. In the judicial assistant’s pithy conclusion “The vast majority of the authorities are made up or misunderstood.”

…

[79] … it is extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around.

…

[81] … A lawyer is not entitled to rely on their lay client for the accuracy of citations of authority or quotations that are contained in documents put before the court by the lawyer. It is the lawyer’s professional responsibility to ensure the accuracy of such material... It is striking that one of the fake authorities that was cited to Dias J was a decision that was attributed to Dias J. If this had been a deliberate attempt to mislead the court, it was always going to fail”

There is certainly an urgent need for all regulatory authorities to promulgate guidance to address the misuse of AI. The extent of the problem can be gleaned from the appendix to this judgment which sets out similar cases from multiple different jurisdictions around the world.

See grounds of judgment here:

https://tinyurl.com/yfh7rxx7