AI on trial: The use of AI in the courts

The suitability of AI as a tool in preparing court submissions has been called into question in two recent cases in England, namely Ayinde, R (On the Application Of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 and Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc [2025] 6 WLUK 622 in the High Court of Justice and the Trade Marks Registry respectively. Both cases serve as a stark reminder that human oversight remains essential.

Ayinde

The Claimant cited five non-existent cases. It appears that the barrister acting for the Claimant used AI to prepare the submissions and it “hallucinated” these cases, although this was not admitted by the lawyers involved.

The High Court took the opportunity to provide guidance on the use of AI for legal research. The solicitors for the Claimant sought to justify the use of these suspected AI-generated cases as cosmetic errors. However, Mr Justice Ritchie deemed this improper, unreasonable and negligent, noting, "the assertion that the citations are merely cosmetic errors is a grossly unprofessional categorisation". He further clarified that the unchecked use of AI to generate case citations could amount to professional misconduct.

The Court referred the matter to the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Therefore, lawyers relying on AI without conducting a sense check risk being reprimanded by the courts as well as exposing themselves to regulatory consequences.

The appendix to this case lists the many instances of erroneous material being put before courts around the world which have been generated by AI – an eye-opening read, which highlights the extent of the problem.

Pro Health Solutions

The Appellant prepared his case himself with the assistance of ChatGPT, which included quotes which could not be found in the cited cases, two cases with incorrect references and three case summaries which did not represent the actual cases. There were also issues with the argument made by the Trade Mark Attorney on the other side, who could not identify the parts of the cases cited in support of his argument.

It was found that those representing themselves are given greater latitude in conducting their case than qualified practitioners, but that they still have a duty not to mislead the court with fabricated, AI-generated authorities. The trade mark attorney was not referred to his regulator, but it was held that "Advocates should always be prepared to explain to a court or tribunal what they have included in skeleton or other written arguments."

Misuse of AI in preparing court submissions could also have cost consequences. Where a party acts unreasonably, it is open to the court to make an adverse award of costs. Here, it was highlighted that it was difficult to see the conduct of a party trying to rely on fabricated case citations as anything other than unreasonable.

Guidance issued by the SCTS on the use of AI

In an attempt to keep up with the rapid growth in the use of AI, courts have issued guidance on its appropriate deployment. In April 2025, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service published its approach to the development of services using AI, including 7 guiding principles it will follow when making use of AI to ensure it is ethical and beneficial, summarised as follows:

Public good – they will use AI where it is of benefit to service users, staff or members of the judiciary.
Safety and security – they will take all reasonable and practicable steps to ensure any AI system they design or use functions in a safe, secure and robust way.
Transparency and accountability – they will communicate clearly whenever AI is used and be transparent about the purpose, capabilities and limitations of any AI systems.
Privacy and data protection – any use of AI will respect privacy rights and comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
Equality and fairness – they will ensure that their use of AI does not unfairly discriminate.
Control and environment – they will ensure that any AI systems enhance rather than replace human decision-making.
Accountability – they will have appropriate governance in place to demonstrate the importance placed on their use of AI.

It is clear from this that the SCTS is seeking to promote the sensible use of AI. Whilst this guidance applies to the use of AI by SCTS rather than those appearing in its courts, the principles should still be borne in mind - in particular, principle 6. AI is a tool to enhance the services we provide, rather than replacing the human thought process altogether.

AI and the future

The cases summarised above highlight that the use of false information before the courts will be taken seriously and that courts are closely monitoring their own use of AI. As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, lawyers, party litigants and courts alike will be likely to continue testing its potential, but the onus is on each user to ensure that the information they are relying on is accurate.

If you have any queries on AI and how it impacts your business, please contact a member of the IP Technology & Data team or check out our AI hub.