Background
The claimant, assisted by Haringey Law Centre, brought proceedings against the London Borough of Haringey over temporary accommodation duties. In written submissions, the pupil barrister relied on multiple fictitious case citations. The Divisional Court, exercising its Hamid jurisdiction, found this to be a serious professional failing and made wasted costs orders against the law centre and lawyer. The substantive claim continues separately.
AI interaction
‘They may cite sources that do not exist. They may purport to quote passages from a genuine source that do not appear in that source.’ The court emphasised that generative AI systems cannot be treated as reliable legal research tools and that practitioners have a duty to check every citation against authoritative sources before submission.
Note: This observation was made in a single Divisional Court ruling that also dealt with Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank. Both cases share the same citation.