EWJ August 62 2025 web - Journal - Page 93
it is all the more important that professional standards are
maintained, and they instruct those who adhere to them. [71]
satisfy himself that Ms Forey had sufficient experience or was
competent to undertake the work she had been instructed by
Haringey Law Centre to do. [72]
Al-Haroun – lay person using Chat GPT; lawyers
following blindly
Al-Haroun sought damages for alleged breaches of a
financing agreement. His solicitor was Mr Hussain of
Primus Solicitors. In support of an application to set
aside an order, witness statements in the names of
Al-Haroun and Mr Hussain contained
… numerous authorities, many of which appear to be either
completely fictitious or which, if they exist at all, do not
contain the passages supposedly quoted from them, or do not
support the propositions for which they are cited. [73]
The Court accepted that Al-Haroun had not intended
to mislead the Court, and that he had misplaced trust
in online resources.
As to Mr Hussain, and Primus Solicitors, the Court
referred the matter to the Solicitors Regulation
Authority to investigate.
The outcome of (any) future regulatory proceedings
remains to be seen. It can be expected, however, that
regulators shall take a dim view of any evidenced reliance upon ‘fake’ caselaw, particularly given the
Court’s concerns in this case and the frequency with
which these issues now arise. There appears to be an
emerging trend which regulators might rightly wish
to arrest. As recently as May this year in Bandla v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2025] EWHC 1167
(Admin), for example, the Court encountered the
same phenomenon:
Al-Haroun “accepts responsibility for the inclusion of
inaccurate and fictitious material in the witness statement that he filed with the court. He says that the citations were generated using publicly available
artificial intelligence tools, legal search engines and online sources. He had complete (but he accepts misplaced) confidence in the authenticity of the material
that he put before the court.” [76]
In my judgment, the Court needs to take decisive action to protect the integrity of its processes against any citation of fake
authority. There have been multiple examples of fake authorities cited by the Appellant to the Court, in these proceedings.
They are non-existent cases. Bandla at [53]
The solicitor accepted that he “relied on legal research
that Mr Al-Haroun had conducted, without independently verifying the authorities”. [77]
The Court was scathing in its criticisms of the solicitors
involved:
it is extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for
the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way
around [79]
What action must now be taken by practitioners?
All lawyers should be familiar with the rules engaged
by the use of LLMs.
For solicitors, the SRA Code of Conduct articulates
clear obligations:
l You must not mislead the court [Rule 1.4]
As to Mr Hussain, and Primus Solicitors, there was a
lamentable failure to comply with the basic requirement to
check the accuracy of material that is put before the court. A
lawyer is not entitled to rely on their lay client for the accuracy
of citations of authority or quotations that are contained in
documents put before the court by the lawyer. It is the lawyer’s
professional responsibility to ensure the accuracy of such
material. [81]
l You must only make assertions or put forward
statements, representations or submissions to the
court or others which are properly arguable [Rule 2.4]
l You must not waste the court’s time [Rule 2.6]
l You must ensure that the service you provide is
competent [Rule 3.2]
The Court’s response – referral not contempt
In both cases, the Court declined to initiate contempt
proceedings.
l Where you supervise or manage others providing
legal services, you remain accountable for the work
carried out through them [Rule 3.5]
As to Ayinde’s counsel, the Court decided that the
factual issues “could not easily be determined in the
course of summary proceedings for contempt,” instead referring the matter to the Bar Standards Board
for investigation to include:
For barristers, the BSB Handbook [v4.8] is clear:
l Barristers must observe their duty to the court in
the administration of justice [CD 1]
l You must not knowingly or recklessly mislead or
attempt to mislead the court [rC 3.1]
questions raised as to potential failings on the part of those
who had responsibility for training Ms Forey, for supervising
her, for “signing off” her pupillage, for allocating work to her,
and for marketing her services. Those could not be addressed
in contempt proceedings brought against Ms Forey alone. [69]
l You must not draft any statement of case, witness
statement, affidavit or other document containing any
contention which you do not consider to be properly
arguable. [rC 9.2b]
As to Ayinde’s solicitor, the Court concluded that there
was no basis to suspect that he had deliberately caused
false material to be put before the court, but referred
the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority to
investigate:
the steps taken by [the claimant’s solicitor] in response to the
correspondence from [the defendant]; and the steps he took to
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
l You must act with honesty and integrity [CD 3]
l You must not behave in a way which is likely to
diminish the trust and confidence which the public
places in the profession [CD 5]
l You must provide a competent standard of work to
each client [CD 7]
91
AUGUST/SEPT 2025