Judge says firm’s management, not the solicitor, was responsible for filing fake AI cases
A county court judge has declined to refer a solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority after two fake cases generated by artificial intelligence were submitted in support of an application to amend pleadings. His Honour Judge Charman found that the responsibility lay with the management of Gordon and Thompson rather than with the solicitor named on the document, Raphael Newton. The judge said his understanding was that the wasted costs order he made against the firm would, in any event, lead to a report being sent to the regulator.
Delivering judgment in Ndaryiyumvire v Birmingham City University, the judge repeated the guidance set out in Ayinde, the leading judgment on the growing problem of false authorities appearing in court documents. He noted that where a lawyer cites non-existent cases, whether because of the use of AI without adequate checking or for any other reason, the court would usually consider making a referral to the regulator and might also consider other sanctions, including the possibility of reporting the matter to the police. However, he said that the circumstances in this case were different.
The judge said the evidence showed that the false material had been inserted by administrative staff rather than by Mr Newton. As a result, he concluded that the errors indicated a failure of management at the firm rather than misconduct by the solicitor. Because of this, and because the wasted costs order would already be notified to the regulator, he decided that a further specific referral of Mr Newton would not be appropriate.
Embed from Getty Images
The matter arose after the claimant applied in July 2025 to amend her particulars of claim. The application carried a statement of truth in Mr Newton’s name. Two authorities cited in support of the application could not be located by the defendant’s solicitors, who asked Mr Newton to provide copies. On discovering that the cases did not exist, he withdrew the document and submitted a revised version. When the issue later came before District Judge Bradshaw, Mr Newton was directed to serve a witness statement explaining what had happened.
He told the court that the two cases had been generated by the built-in research function of the firm’s legal software. He said the draft had been prepared by another member of staff and that he had not reviewed it before it was mistakenly filed by the administrative team. The judge said his explanation of how the draft came to be filed was somewhat inadequate, adding that Mr Newton’s reference to the pressure of time was never an excuse for submitting inaccurate or misleading documents.
The judge also recorded that the application had been physically signed not by Mr Newton but by an administrative staff member who had used his initials. He said this amounted to a very serious breach of the relevant practice rules, although it did not form part of the wasted costs order.
Mr Newton apologised to the court and to the defendant’s solicitors. He stated that the firm had introduced measures to prevent similar errors in the future. These included mandatory verification of all case citations by a solicitor before any document is filed, clear labelling of drafts to reduce the risk of accidental filing, additional training for staff on managing documents, and protocol changes governing the signing of applications.
Judge Charman found that Gordon and Thompson had acted improperly, unreasonably, and negligently, making it appropriate to order wasted costs against the firm. He said that although the submission of false authorities is always a serious matter, this case fell at the lower end of seriousness because the authorities had not been used in a hearing and were withdrawn relatively quickly. He said that contempt proceedings and a referral to the police would have been wholly disproportionate in the circumstances.