Duo self-report to SRA over grounds of appeal ‘infected with AI’

Two individuals involved in filing court documents using ChatGPT which were riddled with mistakes and invented quotes have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Upper Tribunal Judge Keith said in a newly reported judgment that the grounds of appeal submitted in an immigration case were ‘completely infected’ by the use of AI and ‘seriously misleading’. Not only did the grounds cite fake cases and quote paragraphs from these cases, they also quoted passages from the original decision of the First-tier Tribunal that were completely made up.

The grounds of appeal and skeleton argument were drafted by an unnamed paralegal working for east London firm Sarker Solicitors. The judge said the supervising solicitor, named as Mr Sarker, ‘had not assumed any managerial responsibility’ for the paralegal.

Counsel for the Home Office suggested the firm’s misrepresentations were ‘at best negligent and at worst reckless’.

The judge said: ‘This was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI, rather than a mere mis-citation of particular cases. The misstatements extended not only to what the judge had supposedly said and to incorrect case citations, but also to assertions of legal propositions which were not supported by the cases cited and also misstatements as to the evidence. The matter could not have been more serious.’

The underlying case was an appeal by a Namibian national against the decision of the First-tier Judge Balroop, who had dismissed her first appeal against the Home Office’s decision not to grant asylum.

In his introduction to the ruling, UT Judge Keith said the appeal had an ‘unhappy history’ thanks to the use of AI by the appellant’s solicitors, illustrating the ‘considerable procedural difficulties’ when can arise.

Keith said the grounds of appeal contained quotes from Balroop’s decision that were ‘pure invention’ and not to be found anywhere, yet criticism of it formed the basis for one of the grounds.

In the decision to grant permission to appeal, the solicitors were even told that Judge Balroop had been wrongly misquoted. Despite these expressed concerns, Sarker Solicitors did not seek to amend the grounds of appeal or otherwise try to address the many flaws in the grounds of appeal but instead filed and served a skeleton argument based on the defective grounds.

Keith noted the procedural irregularities were not caused by AI but rather by the solicitors’ misuse of AI. ‘This occurred because Sarker Solicitors did not check the accuracy of the grounds of appeal, did not consider the grant of permission and did not check the accuracy of the skeleton argument. Both were produced by a junior member of staff, namely a paralegal, using ChatGPT, which itself raises significant concerns about client confidentiality and legal privilege.

‘Throughout this, it appears that Mr Sarker’s supervision of the paralegal did not begin to mitigate the risk of filing seriously misleading submissions.’

The judge declined to set aside permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal in any case. The Home Office was invited to file and serve any wasted costs application on Sarker Solicitors within 28 days.