{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-11T08:49:03.674Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"tribunal","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-rennes-administrative-court-fines-claimant-ai-written-tax-appeal","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Par une ordonnance n°2508168 rendue le 19 août 2026, le tribunal administratif de Rennes a infligé une amende pour recours abusif de 500 euros à une personne dont le recours avait manifestement été écrit à l’aide d’un outil d’intelligence artificielle.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'le vice-président du tribunal administratif de Rennes, Thurian Jouno, prend l'exemple d'une femme qui avait réclamé l'annulation d'un rattrapage fiscal, manifestement avec l'aide de l'IA. Elle a été condamnée à une amende de 500 €.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Le 19 août 2026, le tribunal administratif de Rennes a condamné une requérante à une amende de 500 euros pour recours abusif.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'Le tribunal administratif de Rennes a tranché le 19 août 2025 : 500 euros d’amende pour recours abusif.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"By order n°2508168 of 19 August 2026, the tribunal administratif de Rennes fined a claimant 500 euros for an abusive application (recours abusif) under article R.741-12 of the code de justice administrative.","causal_attribution":"Gossement Avocats quotes the order; the court’s vice-president described the fine on France Inter (ICI). Le Tribunal du Net (relaying Capital) dates the order 19 August 2025, contradicting its own opening sentence and the other sources; 2026 is used here."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'avait déposé un recours devant le tribunal administratif de Rennes pour contester une décision de l’administration fiscale (rappel de TVA)'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'les moyens de la requête, laquelle a, au demeurant, été manifestement écrite à l’aide d’un outil d’intelligence artificielle, ne sont pas assortis des précisions les plus élémentaires, permettant au juge d’en apprécier la portée et le bien-fondé.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Elle demandait l’annulation d’un rattrapage fiscal dans une requête qui comportait des erreurs importantes et était, selon le juge, manifestement assistée par un outil d’intelligence artificielle.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The order states that the application, contesting a VAT reassessment by the tax administration, had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed for the judge to assess them; this was one of the grounds for rejecting it.","causal_attribution":"The court’s own finding, as quoted by Gossement Avocats. The court inferred AI drafting from the text; no source says which tool was used or quotes the claimant."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'il n’est pas établi que la requête ait été précédée d’une réclamation adressée aux services fiscaux. Elle est donc manifestement irrecevable'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Eu égard à ce qui a été dit aux points 2 et 3 ci-dessus, la présente requête, qui fait d’ailleurs suite à une requête ayant, en substance, le même objet, rejetée par ordonnance du 3 octobre 2025, présente un caractère abusif.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'le tribunal administratif de Rennes n’a pas infligé cette amende pour recours abusif à l’auteure de la requête au seul motif qu’il a été rédigé avec l’aide de l’IA.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Ce n’est donc pas l’usage de l’IA en lui-même qui a été puni, mais l’insistance sur un dossier déjà tranché.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court also found the application manifestly inadmissible because it was not shown to have been preceded by a complaint to the tax service, and held it abusive in view of that finding, the imprecision finding and the fact that it followed a request with substantially the same object rejected by order of 3 October 2025.","causal_attribution":"The order’s reasoning as quoted by Gossement Avocats: the AI-drafted imprecision is one stated ground among several; Gossement and Le Tribunal du Net both stress that AI use alone was not the basis of the fine."}],"effects":[{"label":"a claimant was fined 500 euros for an abusive application that the court found manifestly written with an AI tool and lacking elementary detail","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the AI-drafted application was rejected, the court stating that its grounds could not be assessed","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.gossement-avocats.com/blog/ia-lusage-abusif-de-lintelligence-artificielle-peut-mener-a-une-amende-pour-recours-abusif-tribunal-administratif-de-rennes-19-aout-2026-n2508168/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Full post read by curl on 2026-09-29 (Arnaud Gossement, note updated 16 September 2026); it quotes the order at length. English renderings in the record are the reviewer’s translations. The order itself was not read.","independence_group":"rennes-order-2508168"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ici.fr/bretagne/ille-et-vilaine-35/rennes/c-est-assez-angoissant-au-tribunal-de-rennes-l-inquietude-face-a-l-augmentation-des-requetes-creees-par-ia-4372820","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"ICI / France Inter, 2 September 2026, reporting the court vice-president’s radio interview; read in full by curl. Reviewer’s translations.","independence_group":"rennes-ta-vice-president"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.letribunaldunet.fr/hightech/recours-ia-amende-10000-euros-risque.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Le Tribunal du Net, 7 September 2026, relaying Capital.fr’s interview with lawyer Alexandre Lazarègue; read in full. It dates the order to 19 August 2025, an error against its own opening and the other sources. Capital.fr’s original was not read.","independence_group":"capital-lazaregue"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.epochtimes.fr/recours-administratifs-et-ia-la-justice-face-a-lafflux-de-requetes-redigees-avec-chatgpt-3354369.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Epoch Times France, 24 September 2026, summarising franceinfo’s report of the decision; read in full. franceinfo’s original was not read.","independence_group":"franceinfo-relay"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","finance","public_services"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and how the claimant used it.","The amount of the VAT reassessment at issue and whether the claimant pursued any further remedy.","Whether the earlier request rejected on 3 October 2025 was also AI-drafted."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was made by the tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) on a French tax (VAT) dispute. Where the claimant lives or where the application was drafted is not stated.","court_countries":["FR"],"event_countries":["FR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete court sanction on a private person whose application the court found manifestly AI-written and too imprecise to assess. The record rests on a law firm’s verbatim quotation of the order and the court vice-president’s radio account; the order itself was not read. The court fined for several reasons, and the record states them. The claimant is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The order, as quoted by Gossement Avocats, states that the application was manifestly written with an artificial intelligence tool; the court’s vice-president repeated this on France Inter. This is the court’s inference from the text. The tool is not named and no source reproduces the claimant’s exchange with it.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess","summary":"According to Gossement Avocats, which quotes the order, and the court's vice-president on France Inter, an order of 19 August 2026 (n°2508168) of the tribunal administratif de Rennes rejected a claimant’s application contesting a VAT reassessment and fined the claimant 500 euros for an abusive application. As quoted by Gossement Avocats, the order says the application had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed to assess them. The court also found it inadmissible because no prior complaint to the tax service was shown, and noted that it repeated a request with substantially the same object rejected in October 2025. The court’s vice-president cited the case on France Inter; commentators stress that AI use alone was not the basis for the fine.","incidentDate":"2026-08-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Generative AI tool (not named in inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A claimant was fined 500 euros for an abusive application and had it rejected; the order states the application was manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess, alongside inadmissibility and repetition grounds (order quoted by Gossement Avocats; court vice-president on France Inter).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One harmed person: the claimant who filed the application the court found AI-written and who was fined 500 euros (order as quoted by Gossement Avocats; court vice-president on France Inter). No other harmed person is reported.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"FR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.gossement-avocats.com/blog/ia-lusage-abusif-de-lintelligence-artificielle-peut-mener-a-une-amende-pour-recours-abusif-tribunal-administratif-de-rennes-19-aout-2026-n2508168/","primarySourceLabel":"Gossement Avocats: IA : l’usage abusif de l’intelligence artificielle peut mener à une amende pour recours abusif (TA Rennes, ord., 19 août 2026, n°2508168)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:28.483038+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:50.764055+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","administrative-court","fine","recours-abusif","ai-drafted-filing","tax","own-use","france","rennes"]},{"id":"2026-kumar-sdt-strike-off-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.1 findings and the schedule of false/miscited authorities.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's listing of the bogus citations.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.2 findings and the 13 April acceptance.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, sanction and reasoning passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Outer Temple's case note confirming the outcome and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing.","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, conviction allegation and sentence passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court reference (recorded as a discrepancy; the judgment controls).","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer struck off after AI-generated false citations in his disciplinary defence","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","kind":"tribunal_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Judgment PDF read on 2026-09-15 (25 Aug 2026): allegations, findings, sanction, panel, and the Ayinde v Haringey invocation.","independence_group":"sdt"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/lawyer-struck-off-for-using-fake-ai-generated-cases-before-sdt","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026).","independence_group":"legal-futures"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/foreign-lawyer-produced-ai-generated-false-citations-at-sdt/5127825.article","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026, Hyde).","independence_group":"law-gazette"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/first-lawyer-struck-ai-addiction","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"rollonfriday"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.outertemple.com/joshua-hitchens-acts-for-the-sra-in-the-first-solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal-case-on-a-lawyers-use-of-ai/","kind":"counsel_case_note","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"outer-temple"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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).","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2026-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Generative AI (tool not named in inspected accounts)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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'.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgment, SRA Ltd v Abhishek Kumar, Case No. 12884-2026 (25 Aug 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:18:05.203137+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:43.433309+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","strike-off","fabricated-citations","sdt","own-use","uk"]}]}