The scene is not hard to imagine. A junior solicitor is under pressure, a court deadline is looming, and they lack confidence in their legal research skills.
Whether it is writer’s block, unfamiliar law, unrealistic timeframes or simply too much work, people will always look for help and the path of least resistance. If they feel they cannot safely turn to a colleague or manager, the seemingly obvious next option is now AI.
We have previously discussed the rise of AI in our newsletters, including its use in complaints handling and the likely future of AI in law firms. This isn’t the first time we have seen a real-life example of AI-generated legal research being put before a judge and being found badly wanting.
In Cork and another v Smith, the High Court criticised Pinsent Masons LLP and two of its solicitors after misleading letters were sent to the court in connection with a block transfer application. A junior associate had used AI to research a point of insolvency law. The AI generated false text purporting to be Insolvency Rule 12.37(5), suggesting that the court had an express power to grant release to outgoing liquidators. That text did not exist.
The judge described the AI’s responses as “plainly wrong” or “extremely misleading”, with hallucinations appearing almost immediately.
The danger here is obvious. AI can sound authoritative even when it is inventing the law. Without proper human oversight, fabricated statutory wording, false citations or misapplied legal principles can slip into formal correspondence and, as this case shows, straight into court.
AI tools promise speed, convenience and the ability to process large volumes of information. For junior lawyers under pressure, that can feel like a lifeline. But the court’s concern was not limited to the junior lawyer’s use of AI. It also focused on supervision.
Drafts containing serious errors were seemingly approved without the AI-generated material being checked against an authoritative source. Even when the AI itself warned that it was not fully confident and that the wording should be verified before being filed, that rather large red flag was missed.
This highlights a critical point for law firms. AI use must be transparent, supervised and subject to the same scrutiny as any other legal work. Supervisors need to know when AI has been used. Junior staff need to be trained to treat AI as a starting point, not a substitute for legal research or legal reasoning. Supervision is not optional.
There was another issue too. When the court identified the false wording, the response did not simply acknowledge what had happened. A second letter attempted to explain the earlier error as a “summary conclusion” rather than squarely accepting that AI had generated wording which had not been verified. The judge found that this was also misleading. It could possibly have more serious consequences than the original error.
That may be the most important lesson. Mistakes happen. AI makes some mistakes easier to make, and harder to spot. But once a mistake is discovered, the professional obligation is to be candid, investigate properly and correct the record. Trying to rationalise the error after the event only makes things worse.
Misleading the court, even unintentionally, strikes at the heart of legal ethics. The judge referred to a “cavalier attitude” to accuracy and emphasised that AI does not remove the need for proper research, thought and verification.
The fallout has been significant: public criticism in a judgment, embarrassment for the firm, a referral to the SRA, and the firm agreeing to meet additional costs caused by the issue.
So whilst we must all accept that generative AI can be a valuable tool to support legal work, it cannot think, reason or take responsibility. Lawyers remain the decision-makers, the fact-checkers and the guardians of professional integrity.
This case shows that AI is not, in itself, the problem. Uncritical reliance on its output, compounded by lack of senior supervision, are bigger issues.
For everyone else, this is a useful moment to pause. How is AI being used in your firm? Is it built into your case management system? Are individuals using external AI tools without permission or supervision? How would you know? Do you have an AI policy that explains what is and is not acceptable? Do supervisors know what to look for? Does your culture allow people to admit capacity issues or ask for help before they take shortcuts?
Nobody wants to be the next cautionary tale.
