"There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused," the judge wrote. (iStock.com/Nutthaseth Vanchaichana)
Forey, a pupil barrister at London chambers 3 Bolt Court at the time, gave a court five fake cases that, she has admitted, might have come from AI-generated summaries of search results on Google or Safari. Judge Sharp took issue with Forey's "worrying lack of insight" into why her conduct was wrong.
The judge also found fault with Hussain, a solicitor with Manchester immigration firm Primus Solicitors, who produced a witness statement with 18 fictional cases after relying on research from his lay client.
Hussain has apologized for his actions, but it was "extraordinary" that the lawyer relied on his client for the accuracy of their legal research, the court found.
"There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused," Judge Sharp wrote. "Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries with it risks as well as opportunities. Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight."
Forey was instructed on one case on judicial review proceedings against the London Borough of Haringey, according to the judgment. Foray was given probationary tenancy at 3 Bolt Court in May, the chamber's website shows.
Forey cited five cases in the grounds for judicial review that did not exist. As a result, the opposing side applied for compensation, and in April the High Court ordered Forey and the Haringey Â鶹´«Ã½ Centre, a charity that had instructed her, to each pay £2,000 ($2,700) to the other side.
Before Judge Sharp, Forey denied using AI tools to assist her legal research but accepted she had acted negligently and apologized. She admitted that she might also have carried out searches on Google or Safari and taken account of AI-generated summaries of the results when she was drafting the grounds.
Judge Sharp found that Forey accepted fault to a degree but that she "refuses to accept that her conduct was improper." Forey says that the underlying legal principles for which the cases were cited were sound, the judge noted.
"This entirely misses the point and shows a worrying lack of insight," Judge Sharp wrote, adding that if it was the case that there was a lack of access to textbooks or electronic subscription services within chambers that would provide nothing more than marginal mitigation.
"We regret to say that she has not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened," the judgment says. There was no evidence provided to support the claim concerning the Google and Safari searches.
The court found that the threshold for initiating contempt proceedings was met. But they were not initiated, because Forey had already been criticized in a public judgment, and she is "an extremely junior lawyer who was apparently operating outside her level of competence," Judge Sharp wrote.
Forey referred herself to the Bar Standards Board, as did the court at the time of the order to pay £2,000. But Judge Sharp said she would also refer the barrister to put the truthfulness of her account to the regulator.
Representatives for Haringey Â鶹´«Ã½ Centre said in response to the judgment that important lessons can be learned to ensure that professional standards are maintained. The center has already taken measures to ensure this "regrettable" situation is not repeated and intends to organize training, the representatives added.
In the second case, solicitor Hussain had cited 18 cases in a witness statement that did not exist. The lawyer said he relied on legal research from his lay client, who had used publicly available AI tools to generate the citations, also without knowing they were fake.
Hussain accepted that the authorities were nonexistent and that it was wrong to rely on the legal research of his client. He apologized and referred himself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Judge Sharp found there was "a lamentable failure to comply with the basic requirement to check the accuracy of material that is put before the court." One of the fake authorities was cited to the judge that would handle the case, and therefore, "if this had been a deliberate attempt to mislead the court, it was always going to fail."
The threshold for contempt proceedings was therefore not met, but the court also referred Hussain to the SRA.
Representatives for Forey, Hussain and Primus Solicitors did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
Foray is represented by Helen Evans KC and Melody Hadfield of 4 New Square Chambers, instructed by Clyde & Co. LLP.
Haringey Â鶹´«Ã½ Centre is represented by Andrew Edge of 11KBW, instructed by Emily Carter and Sahil Kher of Kingsley Napley LLP.
Abid Hussain and Primus Solicitors are represented by David Lonsdale of 33 Bedford Row, instructed by Primus Solicitors.
The cases are The King (on application of Frederick Ayinde) v. The London Borough of Haringey, case number AC-2024-LON-003062, and Hamad Al-Haroun v. Qatar National Bank QPSC and another, case number CL-2024-000435, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
--Editing by Ed Harris.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
