MS (Professional Conduct; AI Generated Documents) Bangladesh

Lawyers must verify the accuracy of authorities and quotations placed before a tribunal. Reliance on an artificial-intelligence tool does not discharge that professional responsibility. Where fabricated authority is supplied without proper checks, the tribunal may refer the matter to the relevant regulator. A referral for police investigation or contempt proceedings requires evidence of deliberate placement of false material with the intention that it be treated as genuine. Illness, tiredness, time pressure and concern for dependants do not excuse conduct likely to mislead the tribunal.

The Upper Tribunal conducted a professional-conduct hearing arising from an immigration appeal. Counsel had relied in the grounds, and later at an error-of-law hearing, on a non-existent authority generated or identified through ChatGPT. He accepted that he had not checked the citation using reputable legal sources and later gave inconsistent explanations.

The issue was whether the conduct justified referral to the Bar Standards Board, and whether the circumstances also warranted police investigation or contempt proceedings. The Tribunal also considered the professional responsibilities governing lawyers who place legal material before the court.

1. Jurisdiction and professional duty. The Upper Tribunal has an inherent jurisdiction to govern its procedure and to require lawyers appearing before it to meet proper professional standards. A lawyer’s primary duty is to the court and to the cause of truth and justice. The Tribunal relied on R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and related Hamid decisions as guidance.
2. Use of artificial intelligence. Large language models may produce fabricated judgments and false citations. A lawyer who uses such a tool must verify the accuracy of authorities and quotations through reputable legal information sources. Reliance on the tool, or on a lay client, cannot transfer that responsibility.
3. Assessment of the conduct. Counsel had used ChatGPT on two occasions without conducting proper checks. He relied on the fictitious authority, maintained its genuineness when challenged, and later gave an incomplete and dishonest explanation. His illness, tiredness, time pressure and family responsibilities did not provide a valid excuse. Taking an unprofessional shortcut likely to mislead the Tribunal was never excusable.
4. Appropriate response. Applying the guidance in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey, Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC, referral to the Bar Standards Board was clearly appropriate. The false material had potentially contributed to permission being granted and had prolonged litigation and increased public expense. The evidence did not establish deliberate placement of false material with the intention that it be treated as genuine. Police investigation and contempt proceedings were therefore inappropriate.
5. The matter was referred to the Bar Standards Board for investigation. The Tribunal expressed the hope that the referral, together with an earlier referral concerning the same counsel, would be considered promptly.

The conduct proceedings arose during an Upper Tribunal appeal for which the First-tier Tribunal had granted limited permission. The professional-conduct issue was determined separately by the Upper Tribunal and was not an appeal on the merits of the appellant’s immigration claim.