{"id":394422,"date":"2025-06-07T20:18:39","date_gmt":"2025-06-07T14:48:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/uk-judge-warns-of-risk-to-justice-after-lawyers-cited-fake-ai-generated-cases-in-court-crypto-news\/"},"modified":"2025-06-07T20:50:45","modified_gmt":"2025-06-07T15:20:45","slug":"uk-judge-warns-of-risk-to-justice-after-lawyers-cited-fake-ai-generated-cases-in-court-crypto-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/uk-judge-warns-of-risk-to-justice-after-lawyers-cited-fake-ai-generated-cases-in-court-crypto-news\/","title":{"rendered":"UK judge warns of risk to justice after lawyers cited fake AI-generated cases in court – Crypto News"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

LONDON (AP) \u2014 Lawyers have cited fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings in England, a judge has said \u2014 warning that attorneys could be prosecuted if they don\u2019t check the accuracy of their research. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

High Court justice Victoria Sharp said the misuse of AI has \u201cserious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In the latest example of how judicial systems around the world are grappling with how to handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence<\/a> in court, Sharp and fellow judge Jeremy Johnson chastised lawyers in two recent cases in a ruling on Friday. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

They were asked to rule after lower court judges raised concerns about \u201csuspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked,\u201d leading to false information being put before the court. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound ($120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But Sharp said it was \u201cextraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant\u2019s housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had \u201cnot provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the \u201cmost egregious cases,\u201d perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

She said in the judgment that AI is a \u201cpowerful technology\u201d and a \u201cuseful tool\u201d for the law. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cArtificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities,\u201d the judge said. \u201cIts use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LONDON (AP) \u2014 Lawyers have cited fake cases generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings in England, a judge has said \u2014 warning that attorneys could be prosecuted if they don\u2019t check the accuracy of their research. High Court justice Victoria Sharp said the misuse of AI has \u201cserious implications for the administration of justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":360602,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[36677,284,188,183,36674,185,186,36675,187,184,36676,189,150,182,190],"class_list":["post-394422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-technology","tag-administration-of-justice","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-blockchain-tech","tag-blockchain-technology","tag-court-proceedings","tag-crypto-technology","tag-cryptocurrency-technology","tag-legal-research","tag-metaverse-technology","tag-nft-technology","tag-public-confidence","tag-soul-bound-token","tag-tech","tag-technology","tag-token-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=394422"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394422\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":394427,"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394422\/revisions\/394427"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/360602"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=394422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=394422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dripp.zone\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=394422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}