ARTICLE
22 September 2026

Lawyer Struck Off In First Disciplinary Case On AI Misuse

KL
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP

Contributor

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer is a world-leading global law firm, where our ambition is to help you achieve your goals. Exceptional client service and the pursuit of excellence are at our core. We invest in and care about our client relationships, which is why so many are longstanding. We enjoy breaking new ground, as we have for over 170 years. As a fully integrated transatlantic and transpacific firm, we are where you need us to be. Our footprint is extensive and committed across the world’s largest markets, key financial centres and major growth hubs. At our best tackling complexity and navigating change, we work alongside you on demanding litigation, exacting regulatory work and complex public and private market transactions. We are recognised as leading in these areas. We are immersed in the sectors and challenges that impact you. We are recognised as standing apart in energy, infrastructure and resources. And we’re focused on areas of growth that affect every business across the world.
The decision makes it very clear that the consequences for lawyers who breach their professional obligations by misusing AI are likely to be serious.
United Kingdom Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the “Tribunal") has, for the first time, sanctioned a lawyer in relation to the misuse of generative AI in proceedings. In Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Kumar (Case No. 12884-2026), the Tribunal ordered that a Registered Foreign Lawyer (the “Respondent”) be struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers. The case arose from two distinct sets of misconduct: first, a criminal conviction for knowingly employing a person without the right to work; and second, and of wider professional significance, the Respondent’s use of unverified and inaccurate legal citations arising from his use of generative AI in the course of the same disciplinary proceedings. Notably, the Tribunal was clear that the sanction it reached was the same sanction it would have imposed if either allegation had appeared before the Tribunal without the other, meaning that the AI-related misconduct alone was sufficiently serious to warrant a strike-off order.

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.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More