AI Hallucination Cases

The grounds of appeal contained at least two non-existent authorities. The judge concluded the false citations likely arose from unchecked generative-AI drafting and directed the solicitor to show cause why conduct should not be referred to the SRA.

Underlying judgment (in which the hallucination had been observed) is here.

The Father, acting pro se, relied in written submissions on numerous authorities (particularly about ASD) that HHJ Bailey identified as not genuine and apparently AI-generated; the court treated this as part of poor litigation conduct and awarded costs against him.

Claimant used Chat GPT to assist in drafting his grounds of appeal and skeleton argument. The documents included fabricated citations and misrepresented case summaries. Claimant admitted to using Chat GPT and apologized for the errors.

Compounding matters, the court suspected that the respondent had also used AI, since the cases cited in the Counsel's skeleton, though extant, did not support any of the propositions made - and Counsel was unable to explain how they got there.

This judgment, delivered on 6 June 2025 by the Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division, addresses two cases referred under the court's Hamid jurisdiction, which concerns the court's power to enforce duties lawyers owe to the court. Both cases involve lawyers submitting written arguments or evidence containing false information, specifically non-existent case citations, generated through the use of artificial intelligence without proper verification.

The Court used this opportunity to issue broader guidance on the use of AI in legal practice, raising concerns about the competence, training, and supervision of lawyers.

AI Use

Bandla denied using AI, claiming instead to have relied on Google searches to locate “supportive” case law. He admitted that he did not verify any of the citations and never checked them against official sources. The court found this unacceptable, particularly from someone formerly admitted as a solicitor.

Hallucination Details

Bandla’s submissions cited at least 27 cases which the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) could not locate.

Bandla maintained summaries and quotations from these cases in formal submissions. When pressed in court, he admitted having never read the judgments, let alone verified their existence.

Ruling/Sanction

The High Court refused the application for an extension of time, finding Bandla’s explanations inconsistent and unreliable. The court independently struck out the appeal on grounds of abuse of process due to the submission of fake authority. It imposed indemnity costs of £24,727.20. The judge emphasized that even after being alerted to the fictitious nature of the cases, Bandla neither withdrew nor corrected them.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The court found Bandla’s conduct deeply troubling, noting his previous experience as a solicitor and his professed commitment to legal standards. It held that the deliberate or grossly negligent inclusion of fake case law—especially in an attempt to challenge a disciplinary disbarment—was an abuse requiring strong institutional response.

AI Use

Dr. Wright, after beginning to represent himself, repeatedly used AI engines (such as ChatGPT or similar) to generate legal documents. These documents were characterized by the court as "highly verbose and repetitious" and full of "legal nonsense". This use of AI contributed to filings containing numerous false references to authority and misrepresentations of existing law.

Hallucination Details

While the core issue in Dr. Wright's litigation was his fundamental dishonesty (claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto based on "lies and ... elaborately forged documents" ), the use of AI introduced specific problems. His appeal documents, bearing signs of AI creation, contained "numerous false references to authority". His later submissions also involved "citation of non-existent authorities". This AI-driven production of flawed legal arguments formed part of his broader pattern of disrespect for court rules and process.

Ruling/Sanction

Mr Justice Mellor granted a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) against Dr. Wright for a three-year period. He found that an Extended CRO (ECRO) would be insufficient given the scope and persistence of Dr. Wright's abusive litigation. The court also referred Dr. Wright's conduct to the Attorney General for consideration of a civil proceedings order under s.42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Dr. Wright was ordered to pay the applicants' costs for the CRO application, summarily assessed at £100,000.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The court found "overwhelming" evidence that Dr. Wright had persistently brought claims that were Totally Without Merit (TWM), numbering far more than the required threshold. This conduct involved extensive lies and forgeries across multiple jurisdictions and targeted individuals who often lacked the resources to defend themselves. The judge concluded there was a "very significant risk" that Dr. Wright would continue this abusive conduct unless restrained. The court noted his consistent contempt for court rules and processes, including his perjury, forgery, breach of orders, and flawed submissions (including those using AI). A GCRO was deemed just and proportionate to protect both potential future litigants and the finite resources of the court system

AI Use

The judgment states that the only other explanation for the fabricated cases was the use of artificial intelligence.

Hallucination Details

The following five nonexistent cases were cited:

• R (El Gendi) v Camden [2020] EWHC 2435 (Admin)
• R (Ibrahim) v Waltham Forest [2019] EWHC 1873
• R (H) v Ealing [2021] EWHC 939 (Admin)
• R (KN) v Barnet [2020] EWHC 1066 (Admin)
• R (Balogun) v Lambeth [2020] EWCA Civ. 1442

Ruling/Sanction

The court imposed wasted costs orders against both barrister and solicitor, reduced the claimant’s recoverable costs, and ordered the judgment to be provided to the BSB and SRA.

Plaintiff had disclosed the use of AI in preparing his statement of case. The court noted:

"29. However, our conclusion was that Mr Zzaman’s statement of case, written with the assistance of AI, did not provide grounds for allowing his appeal. Although some of the case citations in Mr Zzaman’s statement were inaccurate, the use of AI did not appear to have led to the citing of fictitious cases (in contrast to what had happened in Felicity Harber v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC)). But our conclusion was that the cases cited did not provide authority for the propositions that were advanced. This highlights the dangers of reliance on AI tools without human checks to confirm that assertions the tool is generating are accurate.

Litigants using AI tools for legal research would be well advised to check carefully what it produces and any authorities that are referenced. These tools may not have access to the authorities required to produce an accurate answer, may not fully “understand” what is being asked or may miss relevant materials. When this happens, AI tools may produce an answer that seems plausible, but which is not accurate. These tools may create fake authorities (as seemed to be the case in Harber) or use the names of cases to which it does have access but which are not relevant to the answer being sought (as was the case in this appeal).

There is no reliable way to stop this, but the dangers can be reduced by the use of clear prompts, asking the tool to cite specific paragraphs of authorities (so that it is easy to check if the paragraphs support the argument advanced), checking to see the tool has access to live internet data, asking the tool not to provide an answer if it is not sure and asking the tool for information on the shortcomings of the case being advanced. Otherwise there is a significant danger that the use of an AI tool may lead to material being put before the court that serves no one well, since it raises the expectations of litigants and wastes the court’s time and that of opposing parties."

AI Use

Dr. Wright, representing himself, submitted numerous case citations in support of an application for remote attendance at an upcoming contempt hearing. COPA demonstrated that most of the authorities cited did not contain the quoted language—or were entirely unrelated. The judge agreed, noting these were likely "AI hallucinations by ChatGPT."

Later on, the Court of Appeal declined permission to appeal (finding that "Dr Wright’s grounds of appeal, skeleton argument and summary of skeleton argument themselves contain multiple falsehoods, including reliance upon fictitious authorities such as “Anderson v the Queen [2013] UKPC 2” which appear to be AI-generated hallucinations"). This led the Court to order him to pay costs of 100,000 GBP.

AI Use

The claimant sought to rely on a conversation with ChatGPT to show that the respondent’s claims about the difficulty of retrieving archived data were false.

Ruling/Sanction

No formal sanction was imposed, but the judgment made clear that ChatGPT outputs are not acceptable as evidence.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The Tribunal held that "a record of a ChatGPT discussion would not in my judgment be evidence that could sensibly be described as expert evidence nor could it be deemed reliable".

AI Use

Catherine Harber, a self-represented taxpayer appealing an HMRC penalty, submitted a document citing nine purported First-Tier Tribunal decisions supporting her position regarding "reasonable excuse". She stated the cases were provided by "a friend in a solicitor's office" and acknowledged they might have been generated by AI. ChatGPT was mentioned as a likely source.

Hallucination Details

The nine cited FTT decisions (names, dates, summaries provided) were found to be non-existent after checks by the Tribunal and HMRC. While plausible, the fake summaries contained anomalies like American spellings and repeated phrases. Some cited cases resembled real ones, but those real cases actually went against the appellant.

Ruling/Sanction

The Tribunal factually determined the cited cases were AI-generated hallucinations. It accepted Mrs. Harber was unaware they were fake and did not know how to verify them. Her appeal failed on its merits, unrelated to the AI issue. No sanctions were imposed on the litigant.

Key Judicial Reasoning

The Tribunal emphasized that submitting invented judgments was not harmless, citing the waste of public resources (time and money for the Tribunal and HMRC). It explicitly endorsed the concerns raised in the US Mata decision regarding the various harms flowing from fake opinions. While lenient towards the self-represented litigant, the ruling implicitly warned that lawyers would likely face stricter consequences. This was the first reported UK decision finding AI-generated fake cases cited by a litigant

Unclear if any formal decision on the matter, the incident was reported in the Law Society Gazette in May 2023 (source).