The Legal Sector has become more and more reliant on artificial intelligence in its practice, whether that be in conducting disclosure or drafting simple letters. Artificial intelligence has been of significant benefit to the legal sector since its introduction, for example saving significant time and legal costs in the disclosure process through its use in narrowing down relevant documents. However, it is a tool that carries risks as well as opportunities and still cannot replicate a qualified lawyer or barrister’s submissions to the court. There have been two recent cases where false authorities have been supplied to the courts, highlighting the pertinent issue of using artificial intelligence.
In the first extraordinary case, Ayinde, R v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin), The Honourable Mr. Justice Ritchie found that the Claimant’s solicitors, Haringey Law Centre, and the Barrister instructed, Sarah Forey, had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently in putting fake cases into a legal pleading. It was alleged that artificial intelligence was used to create these fake cases, but no finding was made in relation to this.
Case Facts
Frederick Ayinde (“Mr. Ayinde”), lived at 98 Scales Road, London N1 for five years until May 2023, when he was forced to leave. He made a claim for judicial review on 19 August 2024 against the London Borough of Haringey (“LBH”), the legal basis of the claim being for providing accommodation under section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996,
The grounds for judicial review were set out in a document dated 28 August 2024. The four grounds set out were
- Procedural impropriety for failing to follow section 188(3) in relation to providing interim accommodation when Mr. Ayinde had applied for review, pending a decision on homelessness. (Ground 1);
- A failure to consider relevant evidence, Mr. Ayinde’s medical evidence and the significant risk of homelessness. (Ground 2);
- Unreasonableness and irrationality in view of the County Court decision which was being ignored by LBH (Ground 3); and
- Unfairness
David Lock KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, granted permission for judicial review, an interim housing order and made directions. Those included that within 35 days the Defendant was to file and serve a statement of facts and grounds of defence, the Defendant having failed to comply with the requirement that an acknowledgement of service should be filed. The Defendant promptly breached this new direction and did not file a statement of facts and grounds of defence.
Discovery of false citations
In February 2025, the Defendant, with a new legal team, made a startling discovery. Several case citations included within Mr. Ayinde’s grounds for judicial review appeared to be entirely fictitious. The Defendant’s legal team asked for the citations for the cases that had been set out in the Claimant’s statement of facts and grounds and seeking an explanation for these seemingly fabricated citations.
The Claimant failed to produce copies of these case citations, and, on 5 March 2025, the Claimant apologised for the incorrect citations. In light of this conduct, the defendant made an application for wasted costs against the Claimant’s lawyers on 7 March 2025.
Judicial Criticism
The Claimant’s letter to the Council was described by Ritchie J, as “truly remarkable.” They said that the citation issues could “easily be explained,” but then declined to provide any such explanation. Whilst they apologised for the issue, they said that it was “improper to barter our client’s legal position for cosmetic errors”
The Judge stated that it was not fair or reasonable for the Claimants to say that the erroneous citations could easily be explained and then to refuse to explain them. Further, Ritchie J described the assertion that the citations were merely cosmetic errors as “grossly unprofessional.”
Further, in analysing the fictitious cases put forward by Sarah Forey, counsel for the Claimant, in the grounds for judicial review, Ritchie J picked out each fictitious case that was cited and explained why it was fictitious and whether it had not been provided to the Defendant or to himself.
The Judge stated what he was told by the Bar is that Ms Forey kept a box of copies of cases and a paper and digital list of cases with their ratios in it. She dragged and dropped the case of El Gendi from that list into this document. However, Ritchie J robustly condemned Forey’s explanation—that she had inadvertently inserted non-existent cases from her own database of past research. Ritchie J remarked:
“If she herself had put together, through research, a list of cases and they were photocopied in a box, this case could not have been one of them because it does not exist. Secondly, if she had written a table of cases and the ratio of each case, this could not have been in that table because it does not exist. Thirdly, if she had dropped it into an important court pleading, for which she bears professional responsibility because she puts her name on it, she should not have been making the submission to a High Court Judge that this case actually ever existed, because it does not exist.”
Wasted costs order
Applying Practice Direction 46, paragraph 5.5, the court concluded:
a) the legal representative had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently;
b) the legal representative’s conduct caused a party to incur unnecessary costs or meant that costs incurred by a party prior to the improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission had been wasted;
c) it was just in all the circumstances, to order a legal representative to compensate that party for the whole or part of those costs”
Court response to misconduct
In relation to part (a) of the legal test for a wasted costs order, Ritchie J stated that the behaviour of Ms Forey and the Claimant’s solicitors was improper, unreasonable and negligent and that that providing a fake description of five fake cases, including a Court of Appeal case, qualifies quite clearly as professional misconduct.
Ritchie J considered whether the barrister had used AI to generate these fake cases. At paragraph 58 of his judgment, he stated:
“I do not accept Ms Forey’s explanation for how these fake cases arose. I do not accept that she photocopied a fake case, put it in a box, tabulated it and then put it into her submissions. The only other explanation that has been provided before me, by Mr Mold, was to point the finger at Ms Forey using Artificial Intelligence. I do not know whether that is true, and I cannot make a finding on it because Ms Forey was not sworn and was not cross examined. However, the finding which I can make and do make is that Ms Forey put a completely fake case in her submissions”
In relation to part (b) of the legal test, Ritchie J found that the deployment of fake cases and attempts by the solicitors to deflect from the issue via its correspondence, had caused the Defendant to incur wasted costs by investigating this.
In relation to part (c) of the legal test, the judge found that the behaviour of the Claimant’s solicitors and the barristers in relation to the fake citations and their attempt to deflect the issue as minor citation errors required him, as a matter of justice, to make a wasted costs order, which he did so.
Further, Ritchie J ordered that a transcript of the judgments in this matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board and that the solicitors and barrister for the Claimant should report themselves to those organisations respectively
Hamad Al-Haroun v Quatar National Bank Q.P.S.C and QNB Capital LLC
In a similar matter, Abid Hussain, of Primus Solicitors, was found to have relied on authorities provided to him by his client in support of an application to set aside an order. David Lonsdale, representing Primus and Mr. Hussian, stated that of the citations of authorities provided by the lay client, 49 were found to be false and were only found after the judge dealing with the application being made by primus spotted one of the cases being cited as supposedly decided by her, which was not true. A formal transcript of the judgment in this case has not been made by the court.
Court’s reaction to these two cases
As a result of the fake citations in both these cases being highlighted to the court, Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench Division, made an order that a hearing be listed for the court to consider whether the conduct of the legal representatives in this matter amounted to an interference with the due administration of justice in High Court proceedings and what further steps, if any, the court should take in relation to these two cases, including the initiating proceedings for contempt of court.
The hearing in relation to these two cases took place on 23 May 2025, and a judgment was handed down on 6 June 2025. Whilst the Court declined to initiate proceedings for contempt of court, it did make several of its own referrals to the relevant regulators. Further, in its concluding paragraph the judgment stated:
“More needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Bar Council and the Law Society, and to the Council of the Inns of Court. We invite them to consider as a matter of urgency what further steps they should now take in the light of this judgment.”
Analysis and Recommendations
These cases dramatically illustrate the severe consequences arising from uncritical dependence on technological tools and inadequate oversight. To avoid similar future errors, legal professionals must:
- Conduct thorough manual reviews of submissions.
- Develop rigorous validation processes for all cited authorities.
- Establish clear ethical guidelines and standards for integrating AI tools into legal practice.
Legal practitioners must recognise their paramount duty to uphold justice, maintain public trust, and adhere rigorously to ethical standards.
Conclusion
The highlighted incidents serve as critical reminders of the professional and ethical responsibilities borne by solicitors and barristers. While AI offers valuable efficiencies, it cannot replace professional judgment, due diligence, and ethical accountability. The legal sector must navigate these technological advancements with enhanced caution and robust oversight mechanisms to safeguard the integrity of the justice system and maintain public confidence. Both of these cases are concerning examples of when this has not been done by either the solicitors or barristers involved with the case.
