As artificial intelligence tools become more embedded in legal practice, courts around the world are beginning to confront the consequences of their misuse.
Recent cases from the United Kingdom, United States and Australia are timely reminders of the professional obligations lawyers must uphold when using AI in legal practice, or when relying on client-provided material that may have been generated by AI.
United Kingdom: Duty to the court prevails
In the UK case of Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank (Ayinde),1 the Divisional Court examined the conduct of legal practitioners who submitted documents containing AI-generated content. In Ayinde, a solicitor relied on case citations provided by their client, which were later found to be fabricated or inaccurate material sourced from generative AI tools. This type of error is commonly referred to as an AI 'hallucination' where an AI tool generates content that appears plausible but is factually incorrect or entirely fictitious.
Despite the client being the original source of the material, the solicitor was held accountable for failing to verify the information. The court imposed a personal costs order on the solicitor, reinforcing that legal practitioners must uphold their professional duties to both the court and their clients, regardless of how the information was obtained.
United States: Fabricated citations lead to penalties
In the US case of Shahid v Essam,2 the Georgia Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision after discovering that the husband's lawyer had submitted fictitious legal citations as a result of AI hallucinations. These fabricated cases were not only included in the trial court's judgment but were also repeated in the appellate brief.
While the Appeals Court acknowledged that using reliable AI tools is not inherently improper, it stressed that lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of their filings. The court ultimately imposed a costs order against the husband's lawyer, underscoring the risks of unverified AI-generated content.
Australia: Indemnity costs for AI errors
Closer to home, in Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v Victoria,3 the Federal Court of Australia recently addressed similar issues in a native title case. Justice Murphy ordered a Melbourne law firm to pay indemnity costs after a junior solicitor used Google Scholar to generate citations that were either incorrect or referred to non-existent documents. The issue came to light when First Nations Legal and Research Services were unable to locate the cited materials.
In making the indemnity costs order, Justice Murphy determined that it would help inform the legal profession of the 'growing problem regarding false citations in documents prepared using AI'. Accordingly, Justice Murphy found that the use of AI in the preparation of two court documents had caused cost, inconvenience and delay to the parties, and had therefore compromised the administration of justice.
Key takeaways
These cases illustrate the ongoing risks associated with AI hallucinations and reinforce a consistent message from courts across jurisdictions – namely, that legal practitioners must exercise independent judgment and verify all information, regardless of its source.
Importantly, lawyers should also be alert to the possibility that clients may use AI tools to prepare or supplement the information they provide. It is crucial to ask whether AI has been used and to scrutinise such material accordingly.
As AI continues to evolve, so must our professional standards and practices. These recent cases serve as a cautionary tale and a call to action to remain diligent, uphold ethical obligations, and ensure that the use of AI enhances rather than undermines the integrity of legal practice.
View our recent video sharing insights on these cases here.
Footnotes:
1 Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383
2 Shahid v. Essam (Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division, June 30, 2025)
3 Murray on behalf of the Wamba Wemba Native Title Claim Group v State of Victoria [2025] FCA 731
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
