Judge warns lawyers who helped LiP with fake AI-generated citations could face contempt charges
A High Court judge has issued a stern warning to lawyers who may have assisted a litigant in person (LiP) in submitting fake citations generated by artificial intelligence (AI). In the case of Wemimo Mercy Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Limited, the judge found that the claimant, who was representing herself in the appeal, had included AI-generated authorities in her submissions, leading the court to caution that any lawyer involved could face contempt proceedings.
The case arose from a dispute between Taiwo and Homelets of Bath Limited over her treatment during an eviction process in 2010. While a recorder had found that Taiwo had been harassed and assaulted, her claim for £2 million in compensation for psychiatric injury, injury to feelings, and loss of earnings was dismissed at the quantum trial. The judge found that Taiwo had been dishonest in a fundamental way, leading to the dismissal of her claim and an order for her to pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis.
Embed from Getty Images
While seeking permission to appeal, Taiwo filed grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument that included a reference to Irani v Duchy Farm Kennels [2020] EWCA Civ 405. The court requested a copy of the authority, but none was provided. The judge later revealed that the authority was bogus, likely created by AI. This follows a pattern of cases in which the presentation of false authorities to the court has been heavily criticised.
Additionally, the claimant’s skeleton argument included another fake reference to Chapman v Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 2085, which was also fabricated. The judge emphasised that relying on false citations is equally problematic when presented by a LiP, and though the sanctions may differ from those imposed on lawyers, there are still serious consequences for those involved.
The judge also made it clear that if a lawyer was responsible for providing or reviewing the false citations, even without direct attribution, they could be referred to their regulatory bodies or face contempt charges. The warning is especially significant in light of the growing use of AI tools in legal research, which can be manipulated to produce misleading or entirely false information.
This case serves as a reminder of the responsibility lawyers have in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of legal submissions. It also highlights the potential legal risks for both LiPs and the lawyers who assist them if AI-generated content is used improperly in court proceedings.