Aipedia: Solicitors and law firms

AI legal research and fake citations: the risk for solicitors

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-27

Unchecked AI citations expose solicitors to SRA referral, wasted costs orders and, in serious cases, contempt, because every authority put before a court must be genuine and support the point. Research is where generative AI is most tempting and where courts have been most severe.

Part of: AI in solicitors and law firms

In short

Generative AI tools can produce plausible but non-existent cases and misstate real ones. Code 1.4 forbids misleading the court and Code 2.4 requires properly arguable submissions. In Ayinde and Al-Haroun the Divisional Court made wasted costs orders and referred lawyers to their regulators; in Munir the Upper Tribunal referred a COLP who signed a junior's grounds. PI usually responds to a client's negligence claim and may respond to a wasted costs order depending on the wording, but regulatory fines are a permitted exclusion. Verifying every citation against an authoritative source is the core control.

How solicitors use AI for research

Solicitors use generative AI chatbots to find leading cases, summarise judgments, suggest arguments and draft skeletons or grounds. Specialist legal research platforms now add AI summaries on top of curated databases. The SRA's 2023 Risk Outlook warned that these systems can return "highly plausible but incorrect results". Errors take three forms: invented cases, real cases with invented quotations, and real cases cited for propositions they do not support.

The duties that apply

The SRA's Misuse of AI warning notice says every authority cited must be genuine, relevant, verifiable and must support the point. The key standards are Principle 1 (administration of justice), Code 1.4 (do not mislead the court), Code 2.4 (only properly arguable submissions), Code 2.6 (do not waste the court's time), Code 2.7 (draw relevant law to the court's attention) and Code 3.5 (supervision). The Law Society's guidance adds that misleading the court breaches Code 1.4 even without dishonesty.

What the courts have done

In Ayinde v Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), judicial review grounds settled by a pupil barrister 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 the law centre's solicitor chief executive was referred to the SRA. In the linked Al-Haroun case, the client produced 45 citations using a public AI tool, 18 of which did not exist, and the solicitor who relied on them unchecked was referred. The court said lawyers must check AI research against authoritative sources, including when relying on someone else's work.

In Munir [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) a junior caseworker's grounds contained fake authorities and the COLP who signed them was referred. The tribunal said a supervisor who misses a junior's false citations is likely to be more culpable than one who misses their own. Earlier, Harber v HMRC involved a litigant in person citing nine invented tribunal decisions.

What can go wrong

Illustrative: a trainee uses a generative AI chatbot to draft an interim application in a commercial dispute. Two of the six cases cited do not exist and a third is quoted inaccurately. The supervising associate checks the argument but not the citations. The other side spots the problem, the application fails, the court considers wasted costs and refers the firm to the SRA, and the client loses an important procedural advantage and complains.

How PI usually responds

Several different losses can arise, and PI treats them differently:

Client negligence claims for lost advantage or extra costs usually fall within the civil liability cover required by the SRA minimum terms, which contain no AI exclusion.
Wasted costs orders are compensatory and some policies respond to them, depending on the wording. See wasted costs orders and personal liability.
Regulatory fines are a permitted exclusion, so an SRA or SDT penalty is usually uninsured. See fines and penalties under PI.

Defence costs for a covered claim are in addition to the limit. Our page on AI hallucination liability explains the wider legal picture.

Practical controls

Check every citation against an authoritative report or official database before filing.
Confirm each case supports the proposition, not just that it exists.
Check client- or counsel-supplied authorities too, as Al-Haroun shows.
Record who verified the citations and when.
Train juniors and make citation checks part of supervision sign-off.

How Apex helps

Apex arranges PI for solicitors and law firms, and a broker can check how your policy treats wasted costs and AI-assisted litigation work. See the AI in law firms hub, the SRA warning notice explained and AI and witness statements.

Sources

Frequently asked

Is citing a fake AI case professional misconduct?

It can be. Misleading the court breaches Code 1.4 even without dishonesty, and the SRA says every authority must be genuine and support the point. Courts have referred solicitors to the SRA in Ayinde, Al-Haroun and Munir, and the contempt threshold was found to be met in Ayinde.

Does PI cover a wasted costs order?

It depends on the wording. Wasted costs orders compensate the other party, and some policies treat them as covered civil liability while others limit or exclude them. Ask your broker to confirm how your policy responds before you need it.

Am I liable for citations supplied by my client or counsel?

Potentially yes. In Al-Haroun the solicitor relied on citations produced by the client with a public AI tool and was referred to the SRA. The Divisional Court said lawyers must check research against authoritative sources, including when relying on the work of others.

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.