The use of AI in the legal sector is widespread and it certainly has its uses. We cannot deny the sharp uptake we have seen from drafting contracts through to legal claims and skeleton arguments. AI is transforming how lawyers work, but a recent High Court case serves as a stark reminder of the risks of overreliance. 

In the case of Ayinde, R v The London Borough of Haringey, legal representatives submitted several case citations that turned out to be entirely fictitious. The court described the conduct as “appalling professional misbehaviour” and imposed wasted costs orders. 

In this case, whilst the judge could not find that AI had been used for evidential reasons, the explanation of the opposing barrister that AI had been used, was noted by the court. The judge also directed that a transcript of his judgment be produced and sent to the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.

AI can be an incredibly helpful tool: it can speed up research, assist with drafting, and even enhance productivity, but it cannot, and should not, replace the scrutiny, judgment, and professional accountability, of a qualified lawyer.

As impressive as AI programmes and algorithms may be, they are still in their  infancy and there needs to be greater safeguards in place against the incorporation of inaccurate information. 

While this case concerned the actions of legal professionals, it also serves as a wider warning to everyone using AI.   It may be tempting to use AI tools directly in place of instructing a solicitor, especially with so much accessible legal content online, but this comes with real risks.  AI can present information with confidence, even when it is entirely incorrect or fabricated.  Without the training and experience to identify those errors, clients may be misled or even unknowingly rely on false legal principles.  For now, AI should be seen as a support tool, and not a substitute, for professional legal advice.

Contact

For more information, contact a member of our team.