17 Mar 2025United KingdomGoogle AI Mode (reported)
In the first of two matters decided together in [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated on 17 November 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) examined grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025 that cited a non-existent Court of Appeal case under the citation of an unrelated equal-pay case. The adviser who drafted them first denied using AI, then told the tribunal his best guess was that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode', and the tribunal recorded that he had concluded it was probable the case came from inadvertent AI use; the panel itself got Google AI to produce varying benches for the fictitious case. He reported himself to the Immigration Advice Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him. He also told the tribunal that he had put client emails and uploaded Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT to summarise them, which he called a data breach he would disclose to the clients; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive privilege.
Core concern Low reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 11/10/2026
17 Sept 2025 to 21 Sept 2026United KingdomChatGPT
A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, and the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her one surviving ground but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, so long after the time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. It directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.
Core + contextual relations Low reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 09/10/2026
Event date unknownUnited StatesUnidentified image tool
KHOU reported on 7 October 2026 that a southwest Houston immigration attorney says people have been taking her photographs, altering them with artificial intelligence and using them on Facebook and Instagram to impersonate her office, with her image placed next to other people posing as attorneys. She says her firm has received calls from people who paid money to the impersonators and that she knows of more than 20 people who may have been targeted. One woman, interviewed by KHOU without her identity revealed, said her family lost about $11,000 after she was promised a permit to stay in the United States within a month and attended what the couple believed were meetings with immigration agents; she said she later discovered that the photo was fake and had been made with artificial intelligence. KHOU reports that people who say they lost money reported the alleged scheme to the Houston Police Department, which said the case will be assigned to an investigator; no arrest or platform response is reported, and the AI identification rests on the attorney's and the woman's accounts.
Core concern Medium reported severity Media Coverage
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 08/10/2026
7 Jan 2026 to 9 Jan 2026United StatesGrok
After a federal immigration agent killed a woman in Minneapolis on 7 January 2026, X users circulated AI-generated images that purported to show the masked agent's face. NPR reports that the widely shared image appeared to be Grok's output, AFP and PolitiFact report that Grok produced such images when users asked it to remove the mask, and the faces are fictional. Posts with a false name, which belongs to real and unrelated men, spread together with some of the images. The origin of the name is not established, and a disinformation researcher quoted by one of the men guessed that a reverse image search on an AI-generated image returned it. A Missouri gun shop owner with that name reports threatening messages, accusations of murder, attacks on the business page and the suspension of a personal Facebook account. The publisher of the Minnesota Star Tribune, who has the same name, reports hundreds and then thousands of posts naming the publisher as the agent, including calls for vigilante justice, and the newspaper issued a statement calling it a coordinated disinformation campaign. AFP reports that xAI answered its inquiry with an automated reply. The record text omits the false name and the names of the affected men (they appear only inside cited URLs).
Core concern Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 7 sources · Added 30/09/2026
7 Jan 2026 to 8 Jan 2026United StatesGrok
A woman was killed by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis on 7 January 2026. Mother Jones reports that an X user asked Grok to alter a photograph of the woman into a sexualized image and that Grok complied and published the result on X, citing a CNN correspondent's post and Grok's own replies, in which the chatbot said it had used sensitive content unintentionally and that the image may violate the 2025 TAKE IT DOWN Act. Mother Jones dates the request to Wednesday 7 January, while the correspondent's post is dated Thursday 8 January and the New York Times reports requests to Grok about the woman on Thursday. Rolling Stone and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch describe the same episode. The woman was already dead when the image was made, so the death is context only and no source connects it to an AI system. No statement from relatives about the image was found. The record does not name the woman and describes the image only as a sexualized alteration.
Core concern Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources · Added 30/09/2026
Oct 2025United StatesUnidentified video tool
From around October 2025, criminals used AI to clone the image, voice, name, signature and firm logo of Ángel Leal, a long-established immigration attorney in Doral, Florida. They created fake videos, look-alike websites, forged contracts and even fabricated Zoom 'immigration hearings' to persuade immigrants to pay for legal services Leal never provided. Immigrants were defrauded of money, and some believed their cases were progressing when they were not; Leal received one to two defrauded callers a day, changed his phone number, hired an anti-piracy firm that removed thousands of fake profiles and videos, and reported the fraud to local police and federal authorities.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources · Added 17/09/2026
12 Mar 2026 to 25 Aug 2026United KingdomUnidentified AI tool
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.
Core concern High reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 5 sources · Added 15/09/2026