Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity

Solicitor referred to regulator after relying on a client’s AI-generated legal citations

A June 2025 High Court judgment records that a claimant accepted using AI tools in legal research containing fictitious authorities. His solicitor admitted relying on that research without checking it and said he withdrew from litigated matters. The court referred the solicitor to the regulator, while declining contempt proceedings because it accepted he had not realised the citations were false. The judgment does not establish a later disciplinary penalty.

AI system
Unidentified legal research tool
Occurred
2025
Reported
6 June 2025
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Relation unknown
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Justice · Work
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source
2 claims: 2 documented. 2 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 1 person

AI system as recorded: Unspecified publicly available AI legal-research tools

Reported harm

The judgment records the solicitor’s withdrawal from litigated matters following reliance on the client’s AI-generated citations and orders a regulatory referral.

What remains unknown

  • Specific AI tools, place of AI use, exact drafting day and month, and subsequent regulatory outcome are unknown.
  • The relation between the AI tools and the affected solicitor is unknown; the client supplied the research.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. Official judgment inspected, with the client’s admitted AI use and the court’s procedural findings distinguished from unestablished downstream outcomes.

2 claims: 2 documented. What the statuses mean

Documented The judgment records the solicitor’s withdrawal from litigated matters following reliance on the client’s AI-generated citations and orders a regulatory referral.

Causal attribution. The judgment connects the professional consequences to failure to verify the client’s research; it does not assign sole causation to AI.

Documented The court declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the solicitor after accepting he had not realised the citations were false.

Causal attribution. Procedural outcome directly recorded in the judgment.

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: United Kingdom.

The inspected judgment is from the High Court of England and Wales. Research location and the affected solicitor’s residence are not established.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-29: Official judgment inspected, with the client’s admitted AI use and the court’s procedural findings distinguished from unestablished downstream outcomes.

People reported harmed in this case

At least 1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One solicitor whose professional consequence is recorded. The client and all other litigants are not counted without separate harm evidence.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Solicitor referred to regulator after relying on a client’s AI-generated legal citations. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-al-haroun-solicitor-referral-ai-citations

BibTeX

@misc{2025_al_haroun_solicitor_referral_ai_citations,
  title = {Solicitor referred to regulator after relying on a client’s AI-generated legal citations},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-al-haroun-solicitor-referral-ai-citations}
}

Related cases

High Unidentified image tool

Jeju: a middle-school student who secretly filmed teachers at his school and turned some of the footage into sexual deepfake composites was referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September 2026; police say the victims are teachers (more than one, number withheld) and no students at the school, the teachers' union questions whether the full scope of harm was confirmed, and the union says the victim teachers have been in treatment for two months while teaching daily, were questioned without a lawyer and wrote the criminal complaint themselves

Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that police found the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun that there are more victim teachers than the one first reported but declined to give a number because the teachers are still teaching at the school and disclosure could cause secondary harm; that some suggestive composites were found and material causing shame was included in the charges; and that, contrary to earlier suggestions, no student at the school was a victim. The Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full extent of the harm had been established, saying the victim teachers had themselves seen footage involving several students yet no compulsory seizure was made; police say the voluntary submission and forensic examination secured the necessary evidence. According to the union, two months after the case came to light the victim teachers are receiving hospital treatment and counselling while going to school every day; on 14 September they gave police victim statements without a lawyer and on 17 September attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee without support from the education office or the school safety mutual-aid association; they wrote and filed the criminal complaint themselves; substitute teachers are hard to find so they have used only three or four of 16 days of special leave; and the mutual-aid association proposes 3.3 million won in legal fees for all victim teachers together, payable after the case ends. The victim teachers requested meetings with the superintendent on 1 and 3 September without success, and a third written request was sent to the superintendent's office on 21 September; the union is running a petition until 2 October for severe punishment and support. Police said they had told the education office that the teachers need support such as treatment costs, rest and sick leave.

Medium DIGI editorial tool

Créteil, France: a court suspended Gisi's (Infopro Digital) plan to cut eight sub-editor posts in favour of a generative-AI tool, finding a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of staff

Gisi, the Infopro Digital subsidiary publishing L'Usine nouvelle, LSA and L'Argus de l'assurance (127 staff, 92 journalists), presented to its works council (CSE) on 4 May 2026 a reorganisation built around 'DIGI', an in-house generative-AI editorial tool, and on 12 May 2026 opened consultation on the reorganisation and on the resulting collective dismissal of its eight secrétaires de rédaction (sub-editors), to be replaced by two chefs d'édition, on the company's estimate that the tool would take over about 70% of sub-editor tasks. Some 250 journalists across Infopro Digital's 26 titles had struck in spring 2026 against a group-wide plan to cut 19 sub-editor posts, and according to Digital Watch (citing Stratégies) five of the eight Gisi sub-editors had received pre-dismissal interview letters. The CSE, relying on an expert report, went to the Créteil judicial court in July. On 15 September 2026 the référé judge found that deploying the plan without real-situation testing presented 'un risque grave et caractérisé sur la santé physique et mentale de plusieurs catégories de salariés', ordered the suspension of the reorganisation and the collective dismissal (including the redeployment processes) until real-situation tests and full pilot issues are produced, with a provisional penalty of 8,000 euros per day for three months, and refused the damages provision. Gisi said it would continue the tests and reserved the right to appeal.

High Unidentified AI tool

SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence

On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.

Medium First Drafts and unidentified legal research tool

Fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): four attorneys on both sides sanctioned after AI tools produced fabricated case citations; trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel

In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents