UK judge warns of risk to justice after lawyers cited fake AI-generated cases in court
LONDON (AP) — Lawyers have cited fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings in England, a judge has said — warning that attorneys could be prosecuted if they don't check the accuracy of their research.
High Court justice Victoria Sharp said the misuse of AI has 'serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system.'
In the latest example of how judicial systems around the world are grappling with how to handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in court, Sharp and fellow judge Jeremy Johnson chastised lawyers in two recent cases in a ruling on Friday.
They were asked to rule after lower court judges raised concerns about 'suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked,' leading to false information being put before the court.
In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound ($120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist.
The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain.
But Sharp said it was 'extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around.'
In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant's housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had 'not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened.'
The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action.
Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the 'most egregious cases,' perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
She said in the judgment that AI is a 'powerful technology' and a 'useful tool' for the law.
'Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities,' the judge said. 'Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 hours ago
- First Post
Musk deletes controversial post targeting Trump in online feud
Musk said on Thursday that the Republican leader is named in classified government papers on former Epstein associates. Epstein committed suicide in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges read more US President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House, May 30, 2025, in Washington. File Photo/AP Tech billionaire Elon Musk has deleted a controversial social media post that alleged a connection between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, shared amid a heated exchange with the US president this week. Musk, who left his position as a key White House advisor last week, said on Thursday that the Republican leader is named in classified government papers on former Epstein associates. Epstein committed suicide in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Trump administration has stated that it is evaluating tens of thousands of documents, recordings, other investigation materials, which his 'MAGA' campaign claims will reveal prominent people involved in Epstein's crimes. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files,' Musk posted on his social media platform, X as his growing feud with the president boiled over into a spectacularly public row on Thursday. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public.' Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He initially doubled down on the claim, writing in a follow-up message: 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' However, he appeared to have deleted both tweets by Saturday morning. Supporters on the conspiratorial end of Trump's 'Make America Great Again' base allege that Epstein's associates had their roles in his crimes covered up by government officials and others. They point the finger at Democrats and Hollywood celebrities, although not at Trump himself. No official source has ever confirmed that the president appears in any of the material. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump knew and socialized with Epstein but has denied spending time on Little Saint James, the private redoubt in the US Virgin Islands where prosecutors alleged Epstein trafficked underage girls for sex. 'Terrific guy,' Trump, who was Epstein's neighbour in both Florida and New York, said in an early 2000s profile of the financier. 'He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' Just last week Trump gave Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship imploded within days as Musk described as an 'abomination' a spending bill that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington and riveted social media users alike stunned by the blistering break-up between the world's richest person and the world's most powerful. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With real political and economic risks to their row, both then appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, but the White House denied reports they would talk.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
UK judge raises alarm after lawyers submit fake legal cases produced by AI tools
Lawyers have cited fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings in England, a judge has said - warning that attorneys could be prosecuted if they don't check the accuracy of their research. High Court justice Victoria Sharp said the misuse of AI has "serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system." In the latest example of how judicial systems around the world are grappling with how to handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in court, Sharp and fellow judge Jeremy Johnson chastised lawyers in two recent cases in a ruling on Friday. They were asked to rule after lower court judges raised concerns about "suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked," leading to false information being put before the court. In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound (USD 120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist. Live Events The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologised for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain. But Sharp said it was "extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around." In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant's housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had "not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened." The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action. Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the "most egregious cases," perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. She said in the judgment that AI is a "powerful technology" and a "useful tool" for the law. "Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities," the judge said. "Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained."
Mint
9 hours ago
- Mint
UK judge warns of risk to justice after lawyers cited fake AI-generated cases in court
LONDON (AP) — Lawyers have cited fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings in England, a judge has said — warning that attorneys could be prosecuted if they don't check the accuracy of their research. High Court justice Victoria Sharp said the misuse of AI has 'serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system.' In the latest example of how judicial systems around the world are grappling with how to handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in court, Sharp and fellow judge Jeremy Johnson chastised lawyers in two recent cases in a ruling on Friday. They were asked to rule after lower court judges raised concerns about 'suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked,' leading to false information being put before the court. In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound ($120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist. The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain. But Sharp said it was 'extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around.' In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant's housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had 'not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened.' The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action. Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the 'most egregious cases,' perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. She said in the judgment that AI is a 'powerful technology' and a 'useful tool' for the law. 'Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities,' the judge said. 'Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained.'
