A former solicitor presented dozens of false cases to the High Court to support his appeal against strike-off, it has emerged.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority, the respondent in the appeal, identified 27 cases presented by Venkateshwarlu Bandla which appeared not to exist. Mr Justice Fordham accepted that two were misspelt and could be linked to real cases, but said the remainder were false and amounted to an abuse of process.

The case is another in a growing list where a litigant has submitted false case citations to support their argument and where the judge has raised the issue of whether they have been generated by AI.

Bandla, who was struck off the roll in 2017, denied using AI or any source identifiable as AI. Instead he claimed to have simply used a Google search for 'case law in support of mental health problems'. He accpepted that many cases cited to the court did not exist and that he had never checked them.

Read more

The court heard that one example of a false case was R (on the application of Smith) v Parole Board, in which the Court of Appeal apparently supported that justice required a flexible approach to issues around mental health. The judge said there was a case which existed with these names but that it did not relate to the proposition given.

Bandla was asked why the court should not strike out his appeal on this basis alone as an abuse of process. The judge recorded that Bandla claimed that the substance of the points which were being put forward was sound, even if the authority being cited for those points did not exist. 

‘I was wholly unpersuaded by that answer,’ the judge said. ‘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. Here, moreover, they have been put forward by someone who was previously a practising solicitor.’

Bandla, who was barred for misleadingly stating his practice had indemnity insurance, had already failed in an application for an extension of time to challenge the strike-off decision. The judge further rejected Bandla’s assertion that the SRA’s lack of due process had denied him an opportunity to respond to proceedings, and rejected that the SDT treated him unfairly or unlawfully. He was ordered to pay the full amount of the SRA’s £24,727 costs within 21 days.

Topics