Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey

Generative artificial intelligence may assist litigation, but it is not reliable legal research. A lawyer who uses it, or relies on work produced by another person or tool, must check every authority, quotation and legal proposition against authoritative sources before using it professionally.

Knowingly or recklessly placing false material before a court may constitute contempt. Negligence alone is insufficient for that purpose. Regulatory referral and costs sanctions may nevertheless be appropriate. The court’s response depends on the circumstances, including the explanation given, mitigation, the effect on the proceedings, and the need to protect confidence in the administration of justice.

These were two referrals to the Divisional Court under the Hamid jurisdiction concerning lawyers who had placed fictitious or inaccurate legal authorities before the court. In the Ayinde proceedings, Ritchie J had made wasted costs orders against counsel and Haringey Law Centre in [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin) and referred the matter onwards. In the Al-Haroun proceedings, Dias J referred concerns about numerous fictitious or misused authorities in evidence filed by the claimant and his solicitor.

The central issues were whether the threshold for contempt proceedings was met, what responsibility lawyers bear for material prepared using artificial intelligence or by clients and junior staff, and what further court or regulatory steps were appropriate.

Disposition. The court found that the threshold for contempt proceedings was met in relation to Ms Forey, but decided not to initiate proceedings or refer the matter to the Law Officers. It made further referrals to the relevant professional regulators. It found Ms Hussain not at fault, found no basis for contempt proceedings against Mr Amadigwe, and found that the contempt threshold was not met for Mr Hussain or Primus Solicitors.

1. Artificial intelligence and professional responsibility. Public generative AI tools can produce plausible but false cases, quotations and legal propositions. They are not reliable legal research tools. A lawyer who uses them must check the output against authoritative sources, such as official legislation and judgment databases and reputable law reports. The same responsibility applies where the lawyer relies on research undertaken by another person. A solicitor cannot rely on a lay client for the accuracy of legal citations or quotations.
2. Contempt. Deliberately placing false material before the court, intending that it be treated as genuine, may constitute contempt. Mere negligence as to falsity is insufficient. The relevant state of mind is knowledge that the material is false or lack of an honest belief that it is true. The court must first assess whether a contempt may have been committed and then decide evaluatively whether proceedings should be initiated.
3. Sanctions and referrals. The court may consider public admonition, costs or wasted costs orders, strike-out, regulatory referral, contempt proceedings and police referral. Relevant factors include the need to maintain standards, the circumstances of the misconduct, the explanation and mitigation, the effect on parties and court resources, the impact on the underlying litigation, and the overriding objective. A wasted costs order requires improper, unreasonable or negligent conduct, unnecessary costs caused to a party, and justice in all the circumstances, subject to the safeguards in CPR 46.8.
4. Application. Ms Forey’s account was not coherent. The court considered that either deliberate use of fake citations or the use of generative AI followed by an untruthful denial would amount to contempt. It declined to commence proceedings because of unresolved factual issues, possible supervisory and training failures, her juniority and context, and the existing public criticism and regulatory processes. The decision not to commence contempt proceedings was expressly not a precedent.
5. Other lawyers. Ms Hussain had acted appropriately under supervision. Mr Amadigwe had not deliberately caused false material to be filed, but his response to clear warnings and his assessment of counsel’s competence were inadequate. Mr Hussain and Primus Solicitors had failed to check material supplied by the client, but the evidence did not establish the mental element for contempt. Regulatory referrals were made in each appropriate case. The judgment was sent to the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Council of the Inns of Court, with an invitation to consider further measures urgently.

This was a Hamid-jurisdiction referral, not an appeal.

1. Administrative Court: In the Ayinde matter, Ritchie J made wasted costs orders and regulatory referrals in [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin), then referred the matter onwards.
2. High Court (King’s Bench Division), Divisional Court: The court considered the referrals concerning Ayinde and Al-Haroun, declined to initiate contempt proceedings, and made further regulatory referrals.