The UK justice system is facing a significant challenge as lawyers increasingly use artificial intelligence (AI) tools that sometimes generate fabricated cases. This alarming trend threatens the integrity of the legal system and public confidence. High Court Justice Victoria Sharp recently warned that attorneys could face prosecution if they fail to verify the accuracy of their AI-driven research. This issue highlights the critical need for oversight and regulation in the use of AI within the legal profession.

AI tools are rapidly transforming the legal landscape, offering unprecedented opportunities to improve efficiency and accessibility. They can automate routine tasks such as document analysis, contract review, and legal research, saving time and resources. For example, AI-powered tools can quickly analyze contracts, reducing the time required for these processes by over 60%, allowing firms to manage a higher volume of work without compromising quality. Several UK law firms have successfully integrated AI to enhance their operations. Norton Rose Fulbright utilized AI-assisted e-discovery tools during the UK government's COVID-19 inquiry, efficiently processing thousands of documents. Similarly, VWV, a mid-sized law firm, invested in AI and collaborated with law tech start-up Robin AI to improve efficiency in contract reviews and drafting reports. Allen & Overy have integrated AI into legal research with their AI tool, Harvey AI, designed to assist lawyers in drafting contracts and conducting legal research.

However, the integration of AI also presents significant risks. One of the most concerning is the generation of fake case citations, also known as AI hallucinations. AI-generated legal research tools have, in some instances, produced entirely fictitious cases, leading to serious repercussions for legal professionals who rely on these tools without proper verification. In a recent UK tax tribunal case, a litigant submitted nine supposed precedents that were entirely fictitious decisions generated by an AI tool. The tribunal judge determined that these "authorities" were hallucinated by AI and that the litigant was unaware they were fake, underscoring how easily automation bias can mislead. In another instance, in Ayinde, R v The London Borough of Haringey, the High Court confronted a startling misuse of AI-generated legal research where lawyers submitted legal arguments that relied on five fabricated cases, including one purporting to be from the Court of Appeal. These citations appeared authentic but were entirely false.

The dangers extend beyond fabricated cases. Algorithmic bias is a well-documented pitfall of AI systems. These systems learn from historical data, which may reflect existing prejudices or unequal patterns. In a legal context, an AI tool might inadvertently favor or disfavor certain types of litigants or claims based on patterns in training data, leading to discriminatory outcomes. The JUSTICE report AI in our Justice System (2025) warns that AI can exacerbate bias at multiple levels. To mitigate these risks, the UK's regulatory framework is evolving. Data protection laws, including GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018, provide important protections relevant to AI. The EU AI Act, expected to become law in 2024/2025, classifies AI systems used in legal and judicial contexts as "high-risk," given their impact on fundamental rights and the rule of law. The UK judiciary has also issued guidance on AI, cautioning judges and lawyers not to treat AI outputs as definitive and stressing that generative AI should be a "secondary tool" for research.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) emphasizes that solicitors must act with honesty and integrity, and delegating legal research to an AI system does not relieve them of their responsibility to ensure accuracy and ethical compliance. Lawyers must verify every source, cross-check authorities, and thoroughly understand the material before relying on AI-generated legal arguments or citations. The rise of AI necessitates a balanced approach that leverages its benefits while upholding legal ethics and regulatory standards. Legal education must evolve to include AI literacy as a core competency, and regulatory bodies may need to provide clearer guidance on the ethical use of AI in legal practice, including mandatory disclosures when AI tools are used. The legal profession is adapting, with the SRA recently authorizing the UK's first AI-only law firm, Garfield. law. However, it is crucial to remember that AI is a tool, not a substitute for human judgment, due diligence, and professional integrity. As Justice Sharp stated, AI is a "powerful technology" and a "useful tool" but its use must take place with an appropriate degree of oversight and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards.