Aipedia: Barristers

AI legal research and fake citations: the risk for counsel

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-30

A barrister who puts a fictitious or misdescribed authority before a court risks wasted costs, a BSB referral and possible contempt, whoever generated the citation. Counsel's name is on the document, so the duty to verify is personal and cannot be passed to a tool or a junior.

Part of: AI in Barristers

In short

AI research tools can invent cases or attach real case names to propositions they do not support. The BSB says AI is "likely to generate false citations when asked a legal question" and that references must be checked through independent sources, even with legal-specific tools. In Ayinde a pupil barrister's grounds cited five fictitious cases, leading to £2,000 wasted costs and a BSB referral; in MS (Bangladesh) counsel was referred after citing a case that did not exist. A client's negligence claim usually falls on BMIF cover. Wasted costs depend on the wording, and BSB fines are excluded.

How counsel use AI for research

Barristers use generative AI chatbots to suggest leading cases, summarise long judgments, test a proposition quickly or find a line of authority under time pressure. Some specialist research platforms may add AI-generated answers on top of curated databases. The errors fall into recognisable types: cases that do not exist, real cases with invented quotations or paragraph numbers, real cases cited for a proposition they do not support, and silence about binding authority that cuts the other way.

The duties that apply

The BSB's AI guidance links research errors to CD1 (duty to the court), rC3 and rC6 (not misleading the court), and rC9.1 and rC9.2 (not recklessly misleading, and no unsupported contentions). CD7 requires a competent standard of work and rC20 makes the professional judgement counsel's own. The guidance warns that errors go beyond citations to reasoning and missing the key issues, and that verification should be "via independent alternative sources" even with legal-specific tools. In Ayinde the Divisional Court said lawyers must check AI research against authoritative sources, including when relying on someone else's work.

What the courts have done

In Ayinde [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) a pupil barrister settled judicial review grounds that cited five fictitious cases. Wasted costs of £2,000 were ordered against counsel and against the law centre, the contempt threshold was met but not pursued, and counsel was referred to the BSB. In the linked Al-Haroun case the client generated the citations and the solicitor relied on them unchecked, a reminder that authorities supplied by others need checking too.

In MS (Bangladesh) [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC) a barrister used a generative AI chatbot and cited a non-existent "Y (China)", and was referred to the BSB. The Upper Tribunal has dealt with several of these cases; see AI in immigration and asylum appeals.

What can go wrong

Illustrative: junior counsel, preparing an interim hearing overnight, asks an AI tool for authority on a procedural point. It returns three cases. Two are real but say something narrower; the third does not exist. Counsel checks that the first two exist but not what they decide. The judge raises the problem, the application is adjourned, the opponent seeks wasted costs and the instructing solicitor reports the episode. The same pattern can affect skeleton arguments and grounds and pleadings.

Wasted costs, fines and BMIF

Different losses are treated differently:

A client's negligence claim for a lost hearing or extra costs is usually within the civil liability cover the BSB minimum terms require: at least £500,000 each and every claim, defence costs in addition, and no AI exclusion.
A wasted costs order is a compensatory costs order, not a regulatory fine. Whether a particular BMIF policy responds is a question of the wording. See wasted costs orders and PI.
BSB fines are a permitted exclusion under the minimum terms, and so are disciplinary costs, so these are usually uninsured.

Our page on AI hallucination liability covers the wider legal position, and does BMIF cover AI mistakes goes through the minimum terms in detail.

When someone else did the research

Counsel is often handed authorities by an instructing solicitor, a lay client or a junior on the team. Ayinde makes clear that relying on someone else's work does not remove the duty to check it, and the court at ¶9 expected heads of chambers to put practical and effective measures in place. Where a pupil or devil produced the research, the barrister who signs the document still answers for it; see pupils, devilling and AI.

Practical controls

Open every authority in an official or reputable law report source before it goes in a document.
Read the passage relied on; confirm the case supports the proposition, not just that it exists.
Check citations supplied by solicitors, clients and juniors as carefully as your own.
Search for contrary binding authority yourself rather than relying on an AI summary.
Keep a short note of how authorities were verified on each matter.

How Apex helps

Apex arranges PI for barristers. A broker can explain how your BMIF cover and any top-up policy treat wasted costs and claims arising from AI-assisted research. Back to AI at the Bar.

Sources

Frequently asked

Is a fake citation misconduct even if I did not know it was false?

It can be. rC9.1 covers recklessly misleading the court, not only knowingly doing so, and the BSB guidance says outputs must be verified independently. Failing to check an AI-generated authority before relying on it is the kind of conduct that led to BSB referrals in Ayinde and MS (Bangladesh).

Does BMIF pay a wasted costs order?

A wasted costs order is compensatory rather than a regulator's fine, so it is not caught by the fines exclusion in the minimum terms. Whether your policy actually responds depends on its wording, which we have not been able to confirm for BMIF, so check your terms or ask your broker.

What if the instructing solicitor supplied the authorities?

You still need to check them before relying on them in court. In Ayinde the Divisional Court said lawyers must check research against authoritative sources, including when relying on the work of others, and the linked Al-Haroun case involved citations generated by the client.

Are specialist legal AI tools safe to rely on?

They reduce some risks but the BSB says verification is still needed "via independent alternative sources" even with legal-specific tools. Treat any AI answer as a lead to be checked against the authority itself, not as a finished citation.

Check your PI covers how you use 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 callback

Apex 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.