Life imprisonment for advocates who use artificial intelligence?

The unjustified use of generative artificial intelligence in legal practice is becoming a dangerous trend and could undermine the foundations of justice. Victoria Sharp, a judge at the High Court of England, warned of the risks of using fake decisions generated by AI.

The proceedings concerned two incidents in which advocates referred to fictitious court cases, according to Computing Magazine, a publication specializing in information technology.

The first case involved a £90 million lawsuit alleging breach of financing terms involving Qatar National Bank.

One of the participants in the proceedings submitted materials to the court in which he cited 18 fictitious court cases. He stated that he had used publicly available AI tools and had no intention of misleading the court. His advocate insisted that he had relied on the client's own research. In response to these arguments, the judge called the situation «extraordinary» and noted that it was unacceptable for an advocate to depend on a client for legal research — it should be the other way around.

In the second case, which concerned a tenant's claim against a municipality, the advocate also referred to five non-existent cases. She denied using artificial intelligence, but was unable to provide the court with a convincing explanation for the appearance of fake citations.

When announcing the decision, the judge emphasized that the use of fake court decisions in procedural documents could undermine confidence in the justice system. Submitting such data may be considered contempt of court or even interference with the administration of justice, a criminal offense punishable by up to life imprisonment in the UK.

«Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries both risks and benefits, - V. Sharpe noted. - Its use must be subject to proper oversight and within a regulatory environment that ensures compliance with established professional and ethical standards. Only under such conditions can public confidence in the justice system be maintained».

Ultimately, complaints were filed against the advocates with their professional bodies. However, no criminal sanctions have been imposed to date.