The High Court of England and Wales has issued a comprehensive warning to legal practitioners about the misuse of artificial intelligence in legal research, threatening “severe sanctions” for lawyers who submit fabricated AI-generated case citations.
Judge Victoria Sharp delivered the warning in a consolidated ruling addressing two recent cases involving questionable legal citations. The judge emphasized that generative AI tools like ChatGPT “are not capable of conducting reliable legal research,” noting these systems can produce responses that appear “coherent and plausible” but may be “entirely incorrect” with “confident assertions that are simply untrue.”
The ruling emerged from two troubling cases that highlighted the growing problem of AI-generated falsehoods in legal proceedings. In the first case, a lawyer representing a client seeking damages against two banks submitted court documents containing 45 citations, of which 18 cases did not exist. Many of the remaining citations either lacked the quoted material attributed to them, failed to support the legal arguments presented, or bore no relevance to the case at hand.
The second case involved a lawyer representing an evicted London resident who cited five non-existent cases in court filings. While the lawyer denied directly using AI, she acknowledged the citations may have originated from AI-generated summaries found through web searches on “Google or Safari.”
Judge Sharp clarified that lawyers may still use AI tools for research purposes, but stressed they bear professional responsibility to verify accuracy through authoritative sources before incorporating such research into their legal work. The increasing frequency of similar cases, including incidents involving lawyers representing major AI platforms in U.S. courts, suggests current guidance requires stronger enforcement.
The judge announced her ruling would be forwarded to professional regulatory bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society, emphasizing that more comprehensive measures are needed to ensure compliance with court duties.
While the court chose not to pursue contempt proceedings in these specific instances, Judge Sharp warned this decision should not be considered precedential. She outlined the range of potential consequences for lawyers who fail to meet their professional obligations, from public reprimand and cost impositions to contempt proceedings and possible police referral.
Both lawyers involved in the cases have been referred to professional regulators for potential disciplinary action.
