FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Chartered legal executives
CILEX advocates must check every authority an AI tool suggests against an authoritative source before relying on it in court. Rights of audience bring personal exposure: a fabricated citation can lead to wasted costs, referral and, in serious cases, contempt.
Part of: AI in Chartered legal executives
In short
CILEX advocates appear in county courts, tribunals and magistrates' courts, often on short notice with limited research time, which makes AI research tempting. The Divisional Court in Ayinde said at paragraphs 7 to 8 that every lawyer must check AI research against authoritative sources, including research done by others. Outcome 1.2 of the CILEx Code forbids knowingly or recklessly allowing the court to be misled. In Ayinde wasted costs orders were made against counsel and a law centre and the contempt threshold was found to be met. PI may respond to a client's loss and, depending on the wording, to wasted costs, but sanctions are usually uninsured.
Advocates use generative AI chatbots and AI features in research platforms to find authorities, summarise judgments, draft skeleton arguments and prepare submissions for interim hearings, small claims, fast-track trials, tribunal hearings and magistrates' court work. Under time pressure, an AI answer that looks complete is easy to accept. The risk is the same at every level: invented cases, real cases with invented quotations, and real cases that do not support the point.
In R (Ayinde) v Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), judicial review grounds cited five fictitious cases. Wasted costs of £2,000 each were ordered against counsel and the law centre, the contempt threshold was found to be met though proceedings were not brought, and referrals were made to the regulators. In Al-Haroun, 18 of 45 citations did not exist. At paragraphs 7 to 8 the court said lawyers must check AI research against authoritative sources, including when relying on others' work, and at paragraph 9 that leaders must take practical and effective measures. In Munir the Upper Tribunal said supervisors who miss juniors' false citations may be more culpable.
CRL has no AI guidance, but its position page says the lawyer remains the decision-maker. Under the CILEx Code of Conduct, outcome 1.2 means you must not knowingly or recklessly allow the court to be misled; citing an authority you have not checked risks recklessness. Outcomes 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4 require current knowledge and acting within competence. Outcome 8.2 keeps you accountable for research delegated to others.
An advocate who stands up in court is personally responsible for what is said. Wasted costs orders can be made against the representative, not only the client, and a court that finds false citations may refer the advocate to their regulator, as happened in Ayinde. For a CILEX advocate that means CRL scrutiny of conduct as well as the firm's exposure. It also means the advocate cannot rely on the fact that a junior or the instructing fee earner prepared the research.
Illustrative: a CILEX advocate covering a county court application uses an AI tool on the train to find authority on relief from sanctions. The skeleton cites a case that sounds right but does not exist, and quotes a real case for a proposition it does not support. The district judge cannot find the first case and asks for an explanation. The application is adjourned, costs are reserved with a wasted costs application threatened, and the judge indicates a referral may follow.
A client's claim for loss caused by a failed application would usually be considered under the PI policy, subject to its terms; the CILEX £2m minimum applies regardless of wording for CRL-authorised entities. Wasted costs orders are treated differently between wordings: see wasted costs orders and PI. Contempt penalties and regulatory sanctions are usually uninsured. For the wider legal picture see AI hallucination liability.
Apex arranges PI for CILEX advocates and firms, and a broker can check how your policy treats wasted costs and AI-assisted advocacy. See the AI for CILEX lawyers hub, AI-assisted litigation after Mazur, immigration casework after Munir and AI in employment tribunal claims.
Yes. The Divisional Court in Ayinde said at paragraphs 7 to 8 that every lawyer must check AI research against authoritative sources. Outcome 1.2 of the CILEx Code forbids knowingly or recklessly allowing the court to be misled.
Wasted costs orders can be made against legal representatives, as in Ayinde where they were made against counsel and the law centre. Whether PI responds depends on the policy wording, so check with your broker.
You remain responsible for what you put before the court. Ayinde says lawyers must check AI research including when relying on the work of others, and Munir shows supervisors and signatories are held to account for juniors' errors.
No. CRL has published no AI-specific rule or guidance as at October 2026 and treats AI as a tool for which the lawyer stays responsible. Outcome 1.2 and the courts' approach in Ayinde set the standard in practice.
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.
