Judge refers solicitors to SRA over 'inexcusable' submission of AI-generated authorities

Two more solicitors have been referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority over the submission of AI-generated authorities to court.

His Honour Judge Grimshaw said the failures of Kossar Qureshi and Mahmood Hussain were so serious that their regulator had to decide whether to take any further action against them.

Hussain, a consultant at west Midlands firm AML Legal, had told the court that the documents citing false authorities had been prepared with the help of a paralegal, although he accepted he should have checked the legal research. Qureshi, director of the firm, had signed off the email filing the bundle.

In Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar & Pitstop, Grimshaw said judges should take a ‘robust approach’ to the large and growing problem of the use of AI and citation of fake authorities, which is now a serious threat to the integrity of the justice system. He added: ‘It seems to me that this is a prime example of a case where, given the material was deliberately, albeit probably negligently, deployed, admonishment alone is insufficient.’

The court heard that three documents were submitted by AML Legal in support of its client’s application for permission to appeal in a civil dispute. These contained incorrect citation of authorities with the suspicion that the documents were created using AI.

One document contained a citation number which appeared to relate to a case about disclosure in family proceedings.

The judge said the skeleton argument also had the appearance of a document that had been generated using AI. At one point it stated ‘Relevance: your client was a litigant in person’ which suggested this was churned out by AI rather than drafted by a human lawyer.

Hussain accepted he was responsible for the conduct of the case, although Qureshi, a director of the firm, had signed off the email filing the bundle. Qureshi submitted that she did not draft, supervise or review the original skeleton argument or grounds document. She accepted the seriousness of the concerns raised and stated that she had reviewed the firm’s internal procedures to ensure safeguards were in place.

Hussain said that the paralegal assisting him had used electronic legal research tools and the firm’s case management software to help identify and summarise potentially relevant authorities. These summaries should have been checked and verified before filing, and Hussain admitted this was an oversight for which he took full responsibility.

The judge accepted Hussain was genuinely remorseful but declined his plea not to be referred to the SRA.

‘Misleading material was placed before the court in terms of mis-cited legal authorities, said to support propositions that they simply did not, when even the most simple of checks would have shown that not to be the case, or shown it to be the case, i.e. that they were incorrect,’ said the judge. ‘That is inexcusable on the part of a professionally qualified lawyer. The fact that one document was endorsed with a statement of truth signed by that same solicitor makes that criticism all the more valid, in my judgment.’

Grimshaw added that there were failures on the part of both solicitors and the management of the firm and said it was important to make a public record of the matter.