FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Barristers
Two reported decisions on lawyers' AI misuse come from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), so immigration counsel have direct guidance on the issue. Fake authorities in grounds and confidential documents placed in AI tools have both led to regulatory referrals.
Part of: AI in Barristers
In short
In MS (Bangladesh) [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC), a barrister who used a generative AI chatbot cited a non-existent case and was referred to the BSB. In Munir [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), the tribunal referred a supervising solicitor over fake authorities in grounds drafted by a junior, said a supervisor who misses a junior's false citations may be more culpable, and held that uploading client letters or Home Office decisions to a public AI tool puts them in the public domain and waives privilege. Ayinde signals that Hamid hearings may examine leadership. Claims and wasted costs sit with counsel's BMIF cover; fines do not.
Immigration and asylum work involves frequent written grounds of appeal, a large body of country guidance and reported decisions, and clients who are often vulnerable and dependent on their representatives. The Upper Tribunal has used its jurisdiction over representatives' conduct, often called the Hamid jurisdiction, to address AI misuse directly in reported decisions. That gives immigration counsel clear signals about what the tribunal expects.
In MS (Professional conduct; AI generated documents) Bangladesh [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC), decided on 12 August 2025, a barrister used a generative AI chatbot and cited a case called "Y (China)" that does not exist. The tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB. The decision applies to counsel the same principle as Ayinde: the citation is the advocate's responsibility, whatever tool produced it. See AI and fake citations.
UK and R (Munir) v SSHD [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) involved fake authorities in grounds drafted by a junior caseworker, and the solicitor who signed them was referred to the SRA. Two points matter for counsel. First, the tribunal said a supervisor who fails to catch a junior's false citations is likely to be more culpable than one who fails to check their own work, which bears on counsel who supervise pupils or devils. Second, at ¶21 it said that uploading client letters or Home Office decisions to a public AI chatbot puts them in the public domain, breaching confidentiality and waiving privilege, and that firms should consider reporting to the regulator and the ICO. The BSB's AI guidance cites Munir.
In Ayinde the Divisional Court said at ¶9 that heads of chambers, managing partners and regulators must take "practical and effective measures", and that future Hamid hearings may examine whether leadership duties were met. For chambers with an immigration team, that points to a written AI policy, training and checks on pupils' and juniors' work; see pupils, devilling and AI.
Munir suggests that once confidential material has gone into a public tool, the confidentiality breach has already happened and reporting to the regulator and the ICO should be considered. For counsel, that also raises whether the instructing solicitor and client must be told and whether the episode is a circumstance to notify to BMIF. Our page on preserving privilege when notifying insurers explains how to report without making matters worse. Grounds drafted with AI raise the same issues as other AI-drafted statements of case.
Illustrative: counsel instructed late on an error of law appeal pastes the refusal letter and First-tier decision into a free AI tool to draft grounds. The grounds cite a reported decision that does not exist. The tribunal lists a Hamid hearing, and the instructing firm asks why its client's documents were put into a public tool.
A client claim for a lost appeal is usually a civil liability claim within compulsory BMIF cover on the BSB minimum terms, with no AI exclusion. A wasted costs order depends on the wording. A BSB fine and disciplinary costs are permitted exclusions, so the cost of a referral is often uninsured. Confidentiality breaches may need separate cyber cover; see free AI tools and confidentiality.
Apex arranges PI for barristers, including immigration practitioners, and can review how your BMIF and any top-up cover treat AI-related claims. More on the AI at the Bar hub.
A barrister used a generative AI chatbot and cited a non-existent case, "Y (China)", in an immigration appeal. The Upper Tribunal referred the barrister to the BSB. The decision is reported as [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC).
The tribunal said supervisors who miss a junior's false citations may be more culpable than those who miss their own, and that uploading client letters or Home Office decisions to a public AI tool breaches confidentiality and waives privilege. Both points apply to counsel.
Stop further use, tell the instructing solicitor, and consider with them whether the client must be informed and whether reporting to the BSB and the ICO is needed, as Munir suggests. Also consider whether to notify BMIF of a circumstance that could lead to a claim.
It is the process by which the courts and tribunal examine the conduct of legal representatives in cases before them. Ayinde said future Hamid hearings may consider whether heads of chambers and firm leaders took practical and effective measures on AI.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
