Report comment

In the recent 'Ayinde' case the judge observed at one point that

"counsel for the claimant had moved on from fake High Court cases to fake Court of Appeal cases. I have no difficulty with the submission that the Respondent local authority had to ensure fair treatment of applicants in the homelessness review process, but I do have a substantial difficulty with members of the Bar who put fake cases in statements of facts and grounds.”

In response to the question, had the conduct by counsel AND the claimant’s solicitors been improper, unreasonable, or negligent, he concluded unequivocally that it had been “all three”. He then went on to say that lawyers should report their 'errors' to their respective regulators.

For conveyancers, the decision of the Court is clear, if they rely on AI-generated material without carrying out their own, independent checks, they will be negligent. A case of 'AI-related negligence'' .

So, property lawyers in addition to cyber-crime, must now be alert to:

1 'Malicious actors' corruption of property data
2 Law tech sector businesses seeking to avoid responsibility for bad data
3 Professional 'AI-related negligence' for failing to verify the veracity of third-party suppliers' data.

I have seen AI-generated property reports. They are often unfit for purpose since they do not provide meaningful advice. Instead, they swamp the client in 'product' data. As the Property Lawyers Alliance made clear in a recent submission to the CMA. 'Land is not a product'. It is a serious mistake to assume otherwise.