PI Brief Update

R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and Another [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers

10/06/25. Date of judgment: 6 June 2025

The Divisional Court’s judgment in these joined contempt cases following a Hamid hearing heard on 23 May 2025 has received wide-spread attention in both the legal press and national media. I want to highlight the unequivocal guidance that the Divisional Court has given as to the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals and the salutary reminder of the regulatory responsibilities surrounding the use of emerging technologies.

Facts

In brief summary, the court considered two cases in the context of regulating its own procedure and the duties lawyers owe to the court. Without going into the particular facts of the conduct in each case, in outline there was actual or suspected use by both a barrister and solicitor of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce legal documents including skeleton arguments and witness statements. Those documents were placed before the High Court. In each case, lawyers had relied on numerous authorities which upon investigation by the court were found not to exist. The cases were fictions although the principles enunciated were in some cases legally correct. In its judgment the Divisional Court explored in considerable detail, with privilege having been waived in material respects, the concerns the use of this technology gave rise to touching upon conduct, competence and supervision.

Decision

The court acknowledged that artificial intelligence is a powerful tool likely to have an important role on litigation in the future but one that carried considerable risk. That is particularly so because in the interests of the administration of justice, the court expects to rely on the integrity of those who appear before it without question and that submissions made to it can be supported. The court also reminded practitioners that the duty rests on individual lawyers where artificial intelligence is used to conduct research or where reliance is placed on the work of others who have done so. The court continued:

“practical and effective measures must now be taken by those within the legal profession … Those measures must ensure that every individual currently providing legal services within this jurisdiction (whenever and wherever they were qualified to do so) understands and complies with their professional and ethical obligations and their duties to the court if using artificial intelligence.”

The court referred to the plethora of published professional guidance drawing attention to the limitations and risks of using artificial intelligence for legal research; alongside the relevant rules within the Bar Standards Board Handbook (for barristers) and the Code of Conduct (for solicitors) which are engaged by the use of such technologies. The court also surveyed the range of powers available to the court to ensure those who appear before it comply with their professional duties ranging from referring matters to the police for criminal investigation where false material is deliberately placed before the court to contempt of court proceedings (at issue in these cases), regulatory referrals (which the court also made), the sanctions of strike out or wasted costs within particular proceedings, or powerful public admonishments in public judgments.

In concluding, the court also emphasised that it considered the existing guidance on the use of artificial intelligence available was insufficient to address its potential misuse; a clear signal that the Divisional Court was not persuaded these were isolated cases of poor conduct. The court stated that “more needs to be done” to ensure existing guidance was followed and lawyers complied with their ethical duties. The Bar Council and the Law Society have been invited to consider what further steps are to be taken.

Discussion

The message from the court could not have been clearer: lawyers have professional duties to understand the limitations of artificial intelligence and to verify the accuracy of any documentation produced reliant on new technologies.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Ayinde-v-London-Borough-of-Haringey-and-Al-Haroun-v-Qatar-National-Bank.pdf

Image ©iStockphoto.com/sompong_tom