LONDON (AP) – Lawyers are pointing to fabricated cases generated by artificial intelligence in British court proceedings, according to a judge who cautioned that attorneys could face prosecution if they neglect to verify the accuracy of their findings.
High Court Judge Victoria Sharp stated that the misuse of AI “seriously affects the management of justice and carries significant implications for public trust in the judicial system.”
As judicial systems worldwide grapple with this issue, the growing presence of artificial intelligence in court has prompted Sharp and fellow Judge Jeremy Johnson to accuse attorneys in two recent cases in a ruling on Friday.
They were asked to intervene after lower court judges expressed concerns about “preparing written legal arguments and subsequently providing unverified witness statements due to suspected reliance on generative AI tools by attorneys,” which led to issues of misinformation being submitted to the court.
In a ruling authored by Sharp, a lawsuit was registered in a £90 million ($120 million) case concerning an alleged breach of a funding agreement with the National Bank of Qatar, which referenced 18 instances where attorneys were absent.
Hamad al-Harone, a client involved in the case, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with inaccurate information generated by publicly available AI tools, asserting that he bore responsibility and not his lawyer, Avid Hussein.
However, Sharp remarked, “It is remarkable that attorneys concluded the accuracy of their legal research should be dependent on their clients rather than other means.”
In other instances, an attorney referenced five fictitious cases in a housing claim from a tenant against Haringey Borough in London. Barrister Sarah Forey opted not to utilize AI, yet Sharp noted that “a consistent explanation of what transpired was not provided to the court.”
The judges referred attorneys to professional regulators in both situations but opted against taking further serious measures.
Sharp indicated that presenting false materials as if they were authentic could be considered a perversion of justice, potentially leading to the most severe penalties in the worst-case scenario.
In her ruling, she described AI as a “powerful technology” and a “valuable tool” in the legal field.
“Artificial intelligence is a resource that poses risks alongside opportunities,” the judge stated. “Thus, its application must occur within a regulatory framework that ensures adherence to established professional and ethical standards, maintaining the appropriate level of oversight and public confidence in the justice system.”
Source: apnews.com