The professional duty to verify legal citations, and what follows from relying on generative AI output. R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey.
Practice; AI and citation of authorities. The Divisional Court held that freely available generative AI tools are fundamentally unreliable for legal research as they can produce plausible but entirely fabricated citations ('hallucinations'). Lawyers bear a professional duty to verify all AI-generated output through authoritative sources (BAILII, National Archives, official law reports) before use. Those in leadership positions must implement practical measures ensuring compliance with AI-related professional obligations.
Practice; AI and citation of authorities. Applying the Divisional Court guidance in Ayinde, HHJ Charman found that a solicitor's firm had submitted two fictitious AI-generated case citations. The firm's administrative staff had used a legal software's built-in AI research feature without verification. The judge held the conduct was improper, unreasonable and negligent, ordered wasted costs against the firm, and struck out the claim with indemnity costs.
Hague Convention child abduction case in which the father's access to the mother's ChatGPT account. And AI-generated search queries within it, was treated as admissible evidence and assessed alongside other evidence. The court's approach (analogous to internet search history) raises questions about authentication and weight of AI-generated material in adversarial proceedings.
First reported English decision in which a judge openly disclosed use of AI (Microsoft Copilot Chat) during the decision-writing process. Judge McNall used AI solely to produce first-draft summaries of lengthy documents; all evaluative and judicial reasoning remained his own. The decision is a reference point for the judiciary's emerging approach to AI as a case-management tool, and underlines that AI use must be disclosed where it affects the content of a judgment.