The UK High Court has today (6 June) handed down its judgment in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), which focussed on whether the Court would initiate contempt proceedings against legal representatives from and for Haringey Law Centre (HLC) after they submitted fake case law in a recent judicial review claim. Perhaps most interestingly, the Court also covered the wider implications of using AI and some of the baseline expectations for practitioners.
HLC represented the claimant in judicial review proceedings led by solicitor Victor Amadigwe assisted by paralegal Sunnelah Hussain. They instructed counsel Sarah Forey, who submitted grounds for the judicial review based on five cases that don’t exist. When challenged by counsel for the defendant, Forey instructed Hussain to send a highly dismissive letter stating that the legal arguments were solid, commenting: “So let us agree that the citation errors can be corrected on the record ahead of our April hearing. Apart from adding our deepest apologies, we do not consider that we are obliged to explain anything further to you directly,” and adding: “We hope that you are not raising these errors as technicalities to avoid undertaking really serious legal research.”
Forey denied to the Court that artificial intelligence was responsible for the fake cases. The Court decided that while her behaviour reached the threshold for contempt of Court, they would not issue contempt proceedings in light of factors including Forey’s lack of seniority, questions around her supervision, and the fact that she has been referred to the Bar Standards Board.
The Court led by Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson accepted Amadigwe’s submission that that HLC is a charitable organisation with minimal funding and a limited workforce. It had not been its practice to check the genuineness of authorities relied on by counsel and it had not occurred to Amadigwe or Hussain that counsel would rely on cases that don’t exist. While Amadigwe was found not to have deliberately caused false material to be put before the court and there was no question of initiating contempt proceedings against him, he has been referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Hussain was found not to be at fault in any way.
Emily Carter and Sahil Kher in Kingsley Napley’s Public Law Team welcomed the judges decision, commenting: “The Law Centre has already taken proactive measures to ensure this regrettable situation is not repeated, and intend to take further steps (including organising training and consulting any relevant guidance).”
What’s perhaps most interesting is that the judgment goes beyond the specific facts of the case, and sets down some observations around what can be expected of those using AI.
First, those who use artificial intelligence to conduct any research have a professional duty to check the accuracy of such research against authoritative sources before using it in their professional work – the Court suggests that this is not just the responsibility of those originally producing the work, but also on those who rely on the work of others who have used AI.
Second, law firm leaders and heads of chambers have an active duty to put in place “practical and effective measures” to ensure that every individual currently providing legal services in England and Wales understands and complies with their professional and ethical obligations and their duties to the court if using AI. Whether or not these leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled is something the Court will scrutinise in future cases.
Further, the Court identified some guidance issued by the regulators around the use of AI in the legal profession, but stressed that “promulgating such guidance on its own is insufficient to address the misuse of artificial intelligence.” The Court highlighted that more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court. Accordingly, the Court has invited the Bar Council, Law Society and the Inns of Court to consider as a matter of urgency what further steps they should now take in the light of this judgment. Stay tuned.