A solicitor whose name was on the submission of two false cases will not be reported to the regulator, a judge has ruled. In Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University, His Honour Judge Charman said the errors made by Raphael Newton, a solicitor with south east London firm Gordon & Thompson Solicitors, would usually be appropriate for the court to refer the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
He made clear that the submission of false authorities was a serious matter and ordered that a transcript of the judgment by prepared and published. But he concluded the false material had been placed by administrative staff rather than Newton himself and so no further action needed to be taken.
‘The failure in this case was in substance a failure of management at the firm more than the failure of Mr Newton as an individual solicitor,’ added the judge, sitting at Birmingham County Court.
The citing of false cases based on artificial intelligence or other online searches is becoming increasingly common, with judges publicly admonishing such conduct and imposing wasted costs orders.
According to the official transcription of the extempore judgment in Ndaryiyumvire, an application to amend the claimant’s particulars of claim had been made in July, signed with a statement of truth in Newton’s name. When the matter came before the county court, it was pointed out that the application contained two authorities that did not exist. The claim was subsequently struck out.
The fictitious cases were Qureshi v Qureshi and Z Ltd v A Ltd, neither of which existed.
Newton was required to produce a witness statement to explain his conduct, in which he said the application document had been generated using software containing a built-in research function which automatically suggests case law. Newton believed the document submitted was a work in progress, the transcript states. He told the court it was mistakenly believed by the administrative team at his firm to be complete and the application was filed.
As soon as the error was identified and the defendant solicitors in the claim requested copies of the cases which could not be found, the firm took immediate steps to withdraw and recall the filed document. He denied any intention to mislead the court or the defendant and he apologised for what he called an ‘administrative oversight’.
Newton said the firm had implemented extra internal checks to ensure that all legal authorities and case references, including court filing, are properly verified and supported by actual judgments before submission.
The application had been made a month after the decision in Ayinde which included guidance from the president of the King’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, about the problem of citing false authorities.
The judge said Newton had given a ‘somewhat inadequate’ explanation as to how the draft came to be submitted. But the matter was ‘not at the more serious end’ as the authorities had not been referred to in a hearing and were withdrawn promptly. Further submissions were invited about the level of wasted costs to be paid.
3 Readers' comments