Expert Witness Journal Issue 64 December 2025 - Flipbook - Page 82
Determining Reliability in Clinical
What Does Ayinde Tell Us About
Negligence Litigation – Evidential
the Use of AI in Legal Research?
and Expert Considerations
by James Tumbridge, Robert Peake & Ryan Abbott
In their second article, Technology partners James
Tumbridge and Robert Peake, and consultant
solicitor Ryan Abbott consider the judgment in the
case of Ayinde, R (On the Application Of) v London
Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 and explain
what it means for using AI in legal research.
Victor Amadigwe, a solicitor, was the Chief Executive
of Haringey Law Centre, Ms Sunnelah Hussain was
a paralegal working under his supervision, and Ms
Sarah Forey was the barrister instructed. Ms Forey
used AI to settle and sign the grounds for judicial
review, with the legal submissions mis-stating the
statutory provisions of the Housing Act 1996 and
citing 昀椀ve 昀椀ctitious cases. The defendant’s legal team
requested copies of the cases they could not 昀椀nd. In
a wasted costs hearing, Mr Justice Ritchie said:
Ayinde brought together two cases where lawyers
used generative AI (genAI) to produce written legal
arguments or witness statements which were not
checked and false information ended up before the
court.
“
Clearly, lawyers need to keep in mind their existing
duties, whether barristers or solicitors. The Solicitors
Regulation Authority’s (SRA) Rules of Conduct
mean that solicitors are under a duty not to mislead
the court or others including by omission (Rule 1.4).
They are under a duty only to make assertions or put
forward statements, representations, or submissions
to the court or others which are properly arguable
(Rule 2.4). Further relevant rules include: the duty
not to waste the court’s time (Rule 2.6), and the
duty to draw the court’s attention to relevant cases
… which are likely to have a material e昀昀ect on the
outcome (Rule 2.7). Most importantly, a solicitor
remains accountable for their work (Rule 3.5).
Ritchie J then found that the behaviour of
Ms Forey and Haringey Law Centre had been
improper, unreasonable, and negligent. Before the
Administrative Court, Ms Forey denied using AI
tools to assist her with legal research and submitted
that she was aware that AI is not a reliable source. She
accepted that she acted negligently and apologised
to the court.
Ms Hussain and Mr Amadigwe also apologised to
the court. Mr Amadigwe explained that it was not
their practice to check what counsel produced.
Administrative court 昀椀ndings
The court has a range of sanctions if a lawyer
breaches the rules: public admonition of the lawyer,
the imposition of a costs order, the imposition of a
wasted costs order, striking out a case, referral to a
regulator, the initiation of contempt proceedings,
and referral to the police if the court thinks that is
warranted.
The Court said of Ms Foley’s explanations:
“
In the case of Ayinde, it was submitted that the
threshold for contempt proceedings was not met,
because counsel did not know that the citations were
false.
Ms Forey could have checked the cases she cited by
searching the National Archives’ caselaw website or
by going to the law library of her Inn of Court. We
regret to say that she has not provided to the court a
coherent explanation for what happened.”
While the Court found the threshold for contempt
was met, it determined that counsel’s junior nature
and having already been publicly admonished and
reported to the Bar Standards Board was su昀케cient
sanction. Mr Amadigwe was referred to the SRA,
and Ms Hussain as a paralegal under supervision
faced no punishment.
Background of Ayinde
The case originated with a judicial review claim by
Mr Ayinde represented by Haringey Law Centre. Mr
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
I do not consider that it was fair or reasonable to say
that the erroneous citations could easily be explained
and then to refuse to explain them.”
79
DECEMBER/JANUARY 2025-2026
