Could UK Lawyers Face Life in Prison for Citing Fake AI-Generated Cases? (apnews.com)
- Reference: 0177957221
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/06/08/036219/could-uk-lawyers-face-life-in-prison-for-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases
- Source link: https://apnews.com/article/uk-courts-fake-ai-cases-46013a78d78dc869bdfd6b42579411cb
> 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.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/uk-courts-fake-ai-cases-46013a78d78dc869bdfd6b42579411cb
No. (Score:2)
But they should lose whatever license they have until they sweat to get one themselves.
Uhh (Score:2, Informative)
So why haven't the government's lawyers been jailed for life over the postal scandal? Bunch of bloody wankers!
I do hope so. (Score:2)
Failing that, a permanent disbarment from practicing law... and a mandatory year working retail, because they need to learn some humility, damn it!
Unfortunately, what I suspect will happen is firms will engage "sarcraficial interns" who'll be there only to be thrown under the bus to preserve these bastards.
Official judgment (Score:2)
[1]Official judgment [judiciary.uk]
The referrals arise out of the actual or suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial
intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are
not then checked, so that false information (typically a fake citation or quotation) is put
before the court. The facts of these cases raise concerns about the competence and
conduct of the individual lawyers who have been referred to this court. They raise
broader areas of concern however as to the adequacy of the traini
[1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Ayinde-v-London-Borough-of-Haringey-and-Al-Haroun-v-Qatar-National-Bank.pdf
But see also (Score:1)
> 23. The court has a range of powers to ensure that lawyers comply with their duties to the
> court. Where those duties are not complied with, the court’s powers include public
> admonition of the lawyer, the imposition of a costs order, the imposition of a wasted
> costs order, striking out a case, referral to a regulator, the initiation of contempt
> proceedings, and referral to the police.
> 25. In the most egregious cases, deliberately placing false material before the court with
> the intention of interfering with
Re: (Score:2)
>> 23. The court has a range of powers to ensure that lawyers comply with their duties to the court. Where those duties are not complied with, the court’s powers include public admonition of the lawyer, the imposition of a costs order, the imposition of a wasted costs order, striking out a case, referral to a regulator, the initiation of contempt proceedings, and referral to the police.
>> 25. In the most egregious cases, deliberately placing false material before the court with the intention of interfering with the administration of justice amounts to the common law criminal offence of perverting the course of justice, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. There has been one instance (not involving artificial intelligence) where a member of the Bar was imprisoned for 12 months for perverting the course of justice after deliberately causing a fake authority to be placed before the court by another person.
Seems like an overly emotional response to demand life imprisonment. I don't know how the brits do it, but a criminal contempt of court over here.. [1]https://www.findlaw.com/crimin... [findlaw.com].
Seems like a 12 month sentence could be about right, along with disbarment.
[1] https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/criminal-contempt-of-court.html
A new source of billing for lawyers (Score:2)
All judgements cited will need to be checked by the other side's lawyers. More work, and more pay, for lawyers.
RESULT
I don't know about life in prison (Score:2)
But sooner or later lawyers are going to realize that AI can and will replace them and since lawyers write the laws I suspect they're going to try to stop that. Probably more successfully than programmers or delivery drivers or taxi drivers will be at stopping their jobs from going to AI and automation.
Things are going to get pretty fucking crazy out there in the near future. I don't think folks realize what's coming because it's a huge transformation and nobody likes to think about changes on that sca
obvious solution (Score:2)
Obviously, the stuff being submitted needs to be checked for veracity using AI.
Clickbait question on AI (Score:2)
The issue at hand is lawyers submitted false information to a court. How they generated the false information was possibly AI, but the lawyers will not admit that is what happened. False information to the court carries a possible sentence of life in prison. Using AI is not the main issue. Not checking that their filings were full of false statements was the issue.
IN the USA the role of judges is... (Score:1)
Is to keep cases running for as long as possible, only delivering verdicts, when all avenues have been exhausted. Are you sure you want that for the uk?
Swear Jar (Score:2)
The solution to most of these "in court" problems is fining counsel:
Insult opposing counsel? Fine
Misbehave? Fine
Not prepared? Fine
Make up citations? Fine
Delay proceedings? Fine
Phoenix Wright impression? Fine
Surprise Witness? Fine
Then use the fines to fund the court's end-of-fiscal-year party.
Jail time and disbarment should be left for serious criminal behavior.
While I am all for reducing the number of lawyers (Score:2)
That seems a bit excessive. Fine them a year's salary and ban them for a year from practiving law. Of course, if they repeat that crap, ban them from practicing law for life.
Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:3)
And this is a particularly stupid example.
Re: (Score:2)
"The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action."
It's always fun when the summary - let alone the article - demonstrates the headline to be bullshit.