High Court Judge Issues Stark Warning About AI Use in Legal Proceedings

A recent High Court judgment has sent shockwaves through the legal profession, with fake case citations generated by AI tools finding their way into court documents. President of the King’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp, alongside Mr Justice Johnson, delivered a stark warning about the misuse of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings in the cases of Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank.

For those instructing expert witnesses and the legal teams who work with them, this judgment isn’t just a cautionary tale; it’s a wake-up call that demands immediate attention to how AI-assisted research and report writing is approached.

What Happened in These Cases

The judgment details two troubling cases where lawyers submitted court documents containing numerous fake case citations. In the Ayinde case, a barrister cited five non-existent cases in judicial review grounds, including fabricated quotations and legal principles. In the Al-Haroun case, the court noted that 

 

“in eighteen instances, the case cited does not exist. In respect of those cases that did exist, in many instances they did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application” (paragraph 74)

 

Both cases appear to involve the use of AI tools like ChatGPT for legal research, without proper verification of the generated content. The consequences were severe, wasted costs orders, referrals to regulatory bodies, and serious questions about professional competence.

 

The Risks Are Real and Growing

The judgment reveals this isn’t an isolated UK problem. The appendix lists similar cases from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, showing a global pattern of AI-generated fake citations finding their way into court documents. As Dame Victoria Sharp noted

“artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities.”

 

Critical Implications for Expert Witnesses

Those working in the expert witness field must recognise that this warning extends beyond barristers and solicitors. Expert reports increasingly rely on literature reviews, case precedents, and research that could be AI-assisted. The professional standards that apply to lawyers, honesty, integrity, and competence, apply equally to all who provide evidence to courts.

Professional Duties in the Digital Age

The judgment makes clear that using AI doesn’t absolve anyone of their fundamental responsibilities. Whether AI is used directly or through others’ work, there remains a duty to:

• Verify all sources by checking authoritative databases like the National Archives, Government legislation database, or reputable legal publishers
• Never rely on AI-generated content without independent verification
• Maintain professional competence by understanding the limitations of any tools used
• Uphold our duty to the court by ensuring all information we provide is accurate and properly sourced

Practical Steps for Expert Witnesses

In light of this judgment, those commissioning and producing expert witness reports should:

• Establish clear protocols for any AI use in research or report preparation, with mandatory verification steps
• Use authoritative sources for all citations, legislation references, and case law – never rely solely on AI-generated summaries
• Implement checking procedures where any AI-assisted content is independently verified before inclusion in reports
• Document your research process to demonstrate due diligence in source verification
• Stay informed about AI limitations and developments in your field of expertise

The Court’s Message Is Clear

 

The judgment warns that “lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction.” This principle extends to all who provide evidence to courts. The court has various powers at its disposal, including public admonishment, costs orders, striking out cases, regulatory referrals, and in the most serious cases, contempt proceedings.

 

A Call for Professional Leadership

The judgment calls on those with leadership responsibilities, including heads of chambers, managing partners, and professional bodies, to ensure practitioners understand their obligations when using AI. This extends to expert witness organisations and training providers.

The Vital Importance of Verification

Rather than focusing on AI’s potential benefits, this judgment highlights the fundamental need for rigorous verification processes in expert witness report preparation. Every citation, reference, and source must be independently checked against authoritative databases, especially when incorporating AI-generated content, third-party research, or collaborative work.

The administration of justice depends on the court being able to rely on the integrity and professionalism of all who appear before it. Expert witness work plays a crucial role in this system, and the use of any technology must uphold, rather than undermine, these fundamental principles.

As Dame Victoria Sharp stated:

There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused.”

 

The message is clear – verification and professional responsibility must never be compromised, regardless of the tools used.

At Psychology Direct, we’re committed to maintaining the highest professional standards in all our expert witness work. Our quality assurance processes ensure all psychology and psychiatry reports meet these exacting requirements, with proper verification of all sources and citations.