Two lawyers have been warned after submitting arguments generated by artificial intelligence.
A judge of the High Court of England and Wales has issued a formal warning to legal professionals, cautioning lawyers that relying on artificial intelligence to generate legal arguments containing fictitious case citations may face criminal prosecution.
Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, along with fellow judge Jeremy Johnson, reprimanded lawyers involved in two separate cases for apparently relying on AI tools to draft written arguments that were submitted to the court without verification.
“There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused,” she said in the ruling on Friday.
The cases arose after lower courts flagged suspected use of AI-generated arguments and witness statements containing false information.
In the ruling by Judge Sharp, the court revealed that one attorney, in a £90 million ($120 million) lawsuit concerning an alleged breach of a financing agreement with Qatar National Bank, cited 18 non-existent cases.
Hamad Al-Haroun, the client in the case, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information generated by publicly available AI tools, accepting personal responsibility and absolving his solicitor, Abid Hussain.
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 another case, barrister Sarah Forey cited five fabricated cases in a tenant’s housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. The lawyer denied intentionally using AI but acknowledged she may have done so inadvertently while conducting online research for the case.
The judge scolded her saying that “Ms Forey could have checked the cases she cited by searching the National Archives’ caselaw website or by going to the law library of her Inn of Court.”
Sharp warned that presenting false material as genuine could constitute contempt of court or, in the most serious cases, perverting the course of justice – a criminal offense punishable by up to life imprisonment.
The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their respective professional regulators but declined to pursue more severe penalties.
High-profile figures and scientists have raised concerns in recent years over the potential dangers posed by AI.
Researchers warn that artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly, with some models reportedly becoming self-aware and rewriting their own code. Palisade Research reported last month that in recent tests, a powerful AI model “sabotaged a shutdown mechanism to prevent itself from being turned off,” raising concerns of a potential real-world AI rebellion.
Lazyness and greed…
Here we go.
Or will they go?
Could it be that Ai cannot be perverted by law-fare?
I predict that AI will wreck havoc among humanity, but different to what most people think.
It will be like the broom in the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
It will attack the misbehaving apprentice first, because AI is nothing but objective, unbiased, evidential, mathematical rule machining and logical, an antithesis to contemporary law-fare, which is subjective, biased, non-evidential, corporate rule based and ideo-logical.
There are many chambers with sweaty seats.
I see AI being advertised (falsely) on one of our news outlets as ‘being able to do anything!!’ which is patently untrue. AI has severe limitations and enormous energy consumption. Meanwhile, in the real world, a small programming hiccup can escalate into a massive outage or machine malfunction costing lives and causing havoc. An artificial intelligence can only produce results which have been fed into him/her without the human due diligence and experience to temper real world functioning.
Law makers patently use chaGTP to write incomprehensible rubbish, in a civilised society this would be clamped down upon immediately but here in our profit driven environment the ridiculousness has escalated to the point of war.