In a significant ruling, the High Court of England and Wales has issued a stern warning to legal professionals regarding the potential misuse of artificial intelligence in legal research. The court emphasizes the necessity for lawyers to adopt more rigorous measures to ensure the integrity of their work.
In a recent decision that addressed two separate cases, Judge Victoria Sharp highlighted the limitations of generative AI tools, such as those that produce text based on prompts. She stated that these tools are not reliable for conducting legal research, as they can generate responses that, while seemingly coherent, may be entirely inaccurate.
Judge Sharp pointed out that although AI can produce responses that appear plausible, they can also make confident assertions that are fundamentally false. This raises serious concerns about the accuracy of information being presented in legal contexts.
While the use of AI in legal research is not prohibited, Judge Sharp stressed that lawyers have a professional obligation to verify the accuracy of any AI-generated information against authoritative legal sources before incorporating it into their work.
The judge noted a troubling trend in which lawyers have cited what seem to be AI-generated inaccuracies in their legal documents. This trend underscores the need for enhanced compliance with professional standards and the importance of ensuring that legal practitioners uphold their responsibilities to the court. The ruling will be communicated to relevant professional organizations to reinforce these standards.
In one of the cases examined, a lawyer representing a client seeking damages against two banks submitted a document containing 45 citations, of which 18 were found to be non-existent. Many of the remaining citations either misquoted the referenced cases or were irrelevant to the legal arguments being made.
In another instance, a lawyer who represented a client evicted from his London residence cited five cases that could not be verified. Although the lawyer denied using AI, she acknowledged that the citations might have originated from AI-generated summaries found online. Judge Sharp clarified that while the court chose not to pursue contempt proceedings in this case, it does not set a precedent for future cases.
“Legal professionals who fail to adhere to their obligations risk facing severe penalties,” Judge Sharp warned. Both lawyers involved in the cases have been referred to professional regulatory bodies for further review. The judge emphasized that the court has a range of powers to address non-compliance, including public reprimands, cost impositions, contempt proceedings, or even referrals to law enforcement authorities.