Skip to main content
NOPE
High reported severity Regulatory Action

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.

AI system
Unidentified AI tool
Unknown
Occurred
12 Mar 2026 to 25 Aug 2026
Reported
4 September 2026
Event location
United Kingdom
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Professional HarmLegal Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Work · Justice
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 5 sources
4 claims: 4 documented. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Generative AI (tool not named in inspected accounts)

What Happened

SRA Ltd v Abhishek Kumar, SDT Case No. 12884-2026: hearing 29 July 2026 (panel P Lewis (chair), H Hasan, D Kearney; Joshua Hitchens of Outer Temple for the SRA; Kumar self-represented), judgment 25 August 2026. Kumar, born February 1985, had been on the Register of Foreign Lawyers since 6 December 2018 (SRA ID 655594). Allegation 2.1: his 12 March 2026 Answer to the Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations from generative AI — the tribunal identified the invented 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502', the miscitation of 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' (in reality an IP case) and a misattributed Baxendale-Walker passage. Allegation 2.2: his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted and contained further errors (he accepted this on 13 April). Both allegations were found proved, with culpability 'very high'; the tribunal said it would have struck him off on either allegation alone, the other being his 29 January 2024 conviction (the judgment records the Central Criminal Court; RollOnFriday says Isleworth Crown Court — the judgment controls) under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, sentenced on 26 April 2024 to a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work. The tribunal invoked Ayinde v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the Divisional Court's guidance on AI-generated false citations. RollOnFriday covered it on 11 September 2026 as the 'first lawyer struck off for AI addiction' — the outlet's joke, not a finding. The specific generative AI tool is not named in the inspected accounts.

Reported harm

Career-ending professional consequence for the lawyer who submitted AI-generated false citations in his own disciplinary defence: struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers on 25 August 2026, with culpability rated 'very high'.

How Harm Occurred

A self-represented lawyer used generative AI to draft his disciplinary defence; the model produced false and miscited authorities (and an AI-drafted admission email with further errors), and the tribunal's findings ended his registration.

Outcome

Resolved

SDT judgment 25 August 2026 (Case No. 12884-2026): Allegations 2.1 and 2.2 proved; culpability 'very high'; struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers; the tribunal would have struck him off on either the AI-citation allegation or the conviction allegation alone.

What remains unknown

  • The specific generative AI tool is not named in the inspected accounts.
  • The convicting court appears as the Central Criminal Court in the judgment and Isleworth Crown Court in RollOnFriday; the judgment controls but the discrepancy is unresolved in the inspected material.
  • Whether Kumar seeks to appeal the strike-off is not reported.
  • His employment status after the strike-off is not reported; the Law Gazette's employment background predates it.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. Tribunal-found: the 12 March 2026 Answer's misleading quotations and citations were produced with generative AI, and the 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors (accepted 13 April). The specific tool is not named in the inspected accounts.

4 claims: 4 documented. What the statuses mean

Documented Allegation 2.1 was found proved: Kumar's 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI, including the non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502', the miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' (in reality an IP case) and a misattributed Baxendale-Walker passage.

Causal attribution. Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; trade press accounts are consistent.

Documented Allegation 2.2 was found proved: his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted and contained further errors, which he accepted on 13 April 2026.

Causal attribution. Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment.

Documented On 25 August 2026 the SDT struck Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers with culpability 'very high', stating it would have struck him off on either allegation alone; the tribunal invoked Ayinde v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).

Causal attribution. Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; the 'first AI case' framing comes from the SRA's counsel and is attributed.

Documented The parallel ground was his 29 January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 — recorded by the judgment as at the Central Criminal Court (RollOnFriday says Isleworth Crown Court, a discrepancy) — sentenced on 26 April 2024 to a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work.

Causal attribution. The conviction ground is established by the judgment; the convicting-court discrepancy across outlets is preserved.

Sources

5 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Judgment PDF read on 2026-09-15 (25 Aug 2026): allegations, findings, sanction, panel, and the Ayinde v Haringey invocation. Applies to s1.

Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026). Applies to s2.

Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026, Hyde). Applies to s3.

Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026). Colour and the specific bogus citations; its 'AI addiction' framing is editorial joking, not a finding. Applies to s4.

Read in English on 2026-09-15 (8 Sep 2026). SRA counsel's chambers' note: case number, dates, judgment link, and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing; participant-side account, recorded as such. Applies to s5.

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

Events: his practice and the SRA proceedings in England. Affected person: Kumar, on the Register of Foreign Lawyers in England and Wales. Court: the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; the parallel conviction was at the Central Criminal Court (per the judgment; RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court is a recorded discrepancy).

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-15: Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with tribunal-found AI misconduct and a dated, career-ending sanction. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; a class-level ruling is not required. Kumar is named in a public tribunal judgment; the parallel conviction ground is recorded for completeness and is not used to inflate the AI link. RollOnFriday's 'AI addiction' framing is recorded as editorial joking.

People described

Abhishek Kumar, former Registered Foreign Lawyer (the AI user, struck off); no client harm is reported in the inspected sources

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One documented harmed person: Kumar himself, the AI user struck off (SDT judgment). No client or third-party harm is reported in the inspected sources and none is counted.

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

Tags

#work#justice#legal-profession#strike-off#fabricated-citations#sdt#uk

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-kumar-sdt-strike-off-ai-citations

BibTeX

@misc{2026_kumar_sdt_strike_off_ai_citations,
  title = {SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-kumar-sdt-strike-off-ai-citations}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Paraná labour court annuls expert report carrying a hidden instruction aimed at AI and fines the court-appointed expert, report says

A labour court in Castro, Paraná (9th Region Labour Court), annulled a court-appointed expert's report after the employer, in a motion for clarification, reported a hidden sentence at the foot of a page instructing artificial intelligence to contest the report only superficially and not to question the files it cited, according to Diário de Justiça. The expert confirmed the text but said it came from teaching material about AI and was inserted by accident; the court's IT section concluded that it had been formatted deliberately to be invisible. The judge said AI had not been used to write the judgment and that the text did not directly influence it, but annulled the report, later submissions and the judgment, ordered a new examination by another expert without AI tools, fined the expert 5% of the value of the case for bad-faith litigation, cancelled the expert's fees and removed the expert from the court's register. The decision, dated 12 October 2026, can be challenged.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows

On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.

Medium ChatGPT

Brasília labour court upholds the for-cause dismissal of a manager it found used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest an iFood customer's complaint

In a judgment of 30 July 2026, the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília (Regional Labour Court of the 10th Region) upheld the dismissal for cause, on 19 March 2026, of a manager hired in June 2024. The employer said he had used artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood delivery app. A witness told the court she saw him use ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order, in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, so that it appeared complete, and use it to contest the customer's complaint to iFood support. The judge found this an act of dishonesty and misconduct that broke the trust required of a manager, rejected his claim that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for a claim he had filed the day before, dismissed all his claims, denied severance items and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees, suspended because he was granted free legal aid. The legal news site Migalhas reported the judgment on 3 August 2026. No appeal is reported.

Medium Unidentified AI drafting tool

Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post

In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.

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