FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Patent and trade mark attorneys
Attorneys who use AI to prepare skeleton arguments or submissions for UKIPO hearings, Appointed Person appeals or IPEC must check every authority at source. Courts have made clear that citing fictitious AI-generated cases can lead to costs orders and regulatory referral.
Part of: AI in patent and trade mark attorneys
In short
Patent and trade mark attorneys appear before UKIPO hearing officers, the Appointed Person on trade mark appeals and, with the right qualifications, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. In Ayinde [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) the Divisional Court said lawyers must check AI research against authoritative sources, and the case led to wasted costs orders and regulatory referrals. Munir [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) added that supervisors may be more culpable than juniors. PI usually covers a client's negligence claim, subject to the policy terms, but fines and regulatory consequences are a different matter.
Contested trade mark work can be a large part of an attorney's practice: oppositions and invalidity actions before UKIPO hearing officers, appeals to the Appointed Person, and patent and trade mark matters before IPEC for attorneys with litigation rights. Generative AI can be used to summarise evidence, find authorities, draft skeleton arguments and prepare written submissions. The risk is the same as in any court: a fluent paragraph citing a decision that does not exist, or quoting a real one inaccurately.
In R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), decided by the Divisional Court on 6 June 2025, fictitious authorities were cited, in one case generated by the client using a public AI tool. The court said lawyers must check AI research against authoritative sources, including when relying on others' work (¶7 to 8), and that those with leadership roles must take practical and effective measures (¶9). In Ayinde, wasted costs of £2,000 each were ordered against counsel and the law centre, and referrals were made to the relevant regulators.
In UK and R (Munir) v SSHD [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), fake authorities appeared in grounds drafted by a junior caseworker. 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.
These cases were not IP cases, but their principles apply to attorneys with litigation rights or appearing before the UKIPO and IPEC. IPReg's AI guidance points to the existing duties in its Core Regulatory Framework. No IPReg disciplinary decision involving AI was found up to February 2026.
Illustrative scenario: a trade mark attorney uses a generative AI tool to prepare a skeleton for an appeal. It cites two decisions supporting a point on distinctiveness. One does not exist, and the other says the opposite. The other side points this out. The tribunal criticises the attorney and considers a costs consequence. The client loses the appeal and complains that its case was undermined.
Consequences can include adverse costs, a referral to IPReg, reputational damage and a negligence claim from the client if the outcome was affected. See AI hallucination liability.
A client's claim that the attorney's negligent use of AI lost a case would usually fall within IPReg-compliant PI, subject to the policy terms. Other consequences sit differently. Fines and penalties are commonly not insurable or are excluded. Whether a policy pays a costs order made against the attorney personally, or the cost of responding to a regulatory investigation, depends on the wording; some policies offer regulatory defence costs cover, sometimes with sub-limits. See defence costs. Report a disputed citation to your insurer as a possible circumstance if a claim may follow.
Apex arranges PI for patent and trade mark attorneys, and a broker can check what your policy says about costs orders and regulatory defence costs. See the attorneys hub, AI responses to examination reports and IPReg AI guidance explained.
Ayinde was a Divisional Court decision on court proceedings, but its principle that lawyers must check AI research against authoritative sources applies to attorneys with litigation rights or appearing before the UKIPO and IPEC. Tribunals expect accurate citation.
Possible consequences include adverse costs, criticism in the decision, referral to IPReg and a negligence claim from the client. In Ayinde, wasted costs were ordered and lawyers were referred to their regulators.
Yes, with care. AI can help with structure, summarising evidence and drafting, but it should not be treated as a source of authority. Every case and quotation must be checked against an official source before the document is filed.
It depends on the wording. PI usually covers civil liability to clients. Costs orders against the attorney, regulatory defence costs and fines are treated differently, and fines are commonly excluded. Check your policy and any sub-limits.
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.
