Firm apologised and self-reported to the SRA after unverified AI material appeared in court correspondence
An Insolvency and Companies Court judge has said a ruling should serve as a “public admonishment” of Pinsent Masons and senior lawyers at the firm after two separate uses of artificial intelligence resulted in misleading material being submitted to court.
ICC Judge Mullen, in Cork & Anor v Smith, found that the firm had misled the court on two occasions: first by providing references containing AI-generated hallucinations, and subsequently by submitting an explanatory letter that also contained inaccuracies produced using AI.
The judge said an unnamed junior solicitor, referred to as “LA”, appeared to have “almost entirely outsourced the thinking process” to an AI program. He added that senior associate Samantha Poulton and partner Steven Cottee had failed to properly supervise the work.
Pinsent Masons has apologised and referred itself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which will consider whether any regulatory breaches have occurred.
The judge said it would be “disproportionate” to pursue contempt proceedings but found there was, at the very least, a prima facie case of a breach of the duty not to mislead the court and the duty not to waste court time.
He said: “Ms Poulton, Mr Cottee and, I will assume, LA, will have found this incident very embarrassing. Ms Poulton and Mr Cottee are experienced solicitors undertaking technical work in a reputable firm… None of that excuses a failure to check the accuracy of the material that was placed before the court.”
The court heard the firm had been instructed on a block transfer application in insolvency proceedings, which would not ordinarily require a hearing, but concerns arose after misleading statements were identified in correspondence.
Judge Mullen said that after querying a point with the firm, he was “taken aback” by a response which relied on a provision that could not be verified. He said: “I immediately assessed that the response had included an AI hallucination.”
He added that he was “astonished” by a follow-up letter which again failed to provide a credible explanation. “The explanation was impossible to accept,” he said.
The judge said that in the initial correspondence the court had been given the impression of “a cavalier attitude” to accuracy, which was reinforced by the subsequent response that “muddied the waters” rather than correcting the record.
Evidence before the court showed that the junior lawyer had used AI to assist in drafting legal submissions and correspondence, including asking it to identify relevant statutory provisions.
Judge Mullen said: “What is remarkable when reading those chats is… on a large number of occasions, it is plainly wrong or, at the very least, extremely misleading.”
He added: “LA seems to have almost entirely outsourced the thinking process to the program.” He said the AI itself had warned that its outputs were not fully reliable, yet this had not prompted proper verification.
The judge said there was a clear failure of supervision, noting that senior lawyers had approved material without properly checking the underlying legal references.
Ms Poulton accepted she had failed to supervise the junior lawyer adequately and admitted she did not check the accuracy of the drafts with sufficient care. Mr Cottee had limited involvement in approving the initial letter.
The court also considered the firm’s internal response, including evidence from its compliance and innovation teams. Judge Mullen said he had been left in no doubt that Pinsent Masons was taking the matter seriously and had self-reported to the SRA.
He concluded that while contempt proceedings would be disproportionate, the conduct warranted regulatory scrutiny. The referral to the SRA was therefore appropriate.
Judge Mullen said AI had potential value in legal work but carried serious risks if used without proper oversight. He said: “AI has the potential to be wholly unreliable. AI may of course provide a jumping off point for research and legal reasoning but it does not, at least at present, do away with the need for proper research and thought on the part of a legal professional.”
Pinsent Masons has since apologised, introduced safeguards around its AI pilot programme, and met the additional costs incurred by its former client.