Large Language Law

In Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin), the High Court issued a strong warning to legal professionals about the dangers of submitting inaccurate or fabricated legal authorities, particularly in the context of AI-assisted drafting. The case involved a homelessness applicant whose legal team included five fictitious case citations in court documents. While the court granted relief to the claimant, it also imposed wasted costs orders on both his solicitor and barrister, finding their conduct improper, unreasonable, and negligent. Although it was not proven that AI tools were used to generate the false citations, the judgment signalled that failure to verify AI-generated content would amount to professional negligence. This case is a landmark in highlighting lawyers’ ethical responsibilities in the age of generative AI.

Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin)

Court: High Court (Administrative Court)

Judge: Ritchie J

Date: 2025

Citation: [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin)

Facts:

This judicial review arose from a homelessness application made by Mr Frederick Ayinde to the London Borough of Haringey. Following procedural failures by the Council, including failure to comply with directions and to file a defence, the Council was debarred from further participation. Interim accommodation was ordered, and the claimant recovered the majority of his legal costs.

However, a separate and serious issue emerged when it was revealed that the claimant’s legal submissions included five fictitious case citations and a significant misstatement of the law under s 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996, which led the Council to pursue a wasted costs order against the claimant’s legal representatives.

Key Issues:

1. Whether the inclusion of fake legal authorities and a mischaracterisation of statutory duties in pleadings constituted conduct that was improper, unreasonable, or negligent under the principles governing wasted costs.
2. Whether responsibility for the misconduct rested with the claimant’s solicitors, counsel, or both.
3. Whether AI tools were involved in generating the fictitious cases, and whether such use (unchecked) would amount to negligence.

Decision:

• Ritchie J concluded that the claimant’s legal team’s conduct was improper, unreasonable, and negligent.
• The Court awarded wasted costs against both the solicitor and counsel personally.
• The claimant’s overall costs recovery was reduced to reflect the misconduct.
• Although it was not proven that AI was used, the judge acknowledged submissions indicating this was likely and held that failure to verify AI-generated content would be negligent.

Notable Judicial Remarks:

• “It is such a professional shame. The submission was a good one… Why put a fake case in?”
• The judge expressed concern that the conduct had progressed from fake High Court citations to fictitious Court of Appeal decisions.
• He reminded the profession that both barristers and solicitors have a duty to ensure the integrity and accuracy of pleadings.
• “This sort of behaviour should not be left unexposed. It undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the Bar.”
• Legal practitioners were urged to self-report errors to their regulatory bodies rather than minimise them.

AI Context:

While the court did not make a definitive finding regarding AI usage, it treated the possibility with gravity. The judgment included a clear warning:

“I consider that it would have been negligent for this barrister, if she used AI and did not check it, to put that text into her pleading.”

Comment:

This decision serves as a stark warning to legal practitioners about the risks of unverified reliance on AI-generated content. It reinforces the fundamental duty of candour owed to the court and emphasises shared responsibility between solicitors and counsel. The judgment is essential for practitioners considering integrating AI tools into legal drafting or advocacy.

source: Judiciary UK