Anthony Malcolm Cork & Anor v Mark Smith

Legal professionals remain personally responsible for the accuracy of material put before the court, even where artificial intelligence has assisted with research or drafting. AI-generated legal research must be checked against authoritative sources before it is relied upon. Supervising lawyers remain accountable for work carried out by junior lawyers and must ensure that AI use and verification are properly supervised.

Where false or misleading material is placed before the court, the appropriate response depends on the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the need to enforce standards, the circumstances of the false material, the candour and promptness of any correction, mitigation, harm, wasted resources and the overriding objective. Contempt proceedings require more than mere negligence as to falsity.

The applicants made a block transfer application under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. The application included provision purporting to release a liquidator from liability. The court questioned the statutory basis for that relief.

In correspondence, Pinsent Masons LLP purported to quote a rule which contained no such wording. A later letter offered an ex post facto explanation which the court found misleading. Evidence showed that artificial intelligence had been used to produce the letters and that the relevant references had not been checked.

The issue at the hearing was whether further action should be taken against the solicitors and their firm, including referral to the regulator or contempt proceedings.

1. Public admonishment and referral. The judgment publicly admonished Pinsent Masons LLP, Mr Cottee and Ms Poulton. Pinsent Masons was required to provide the judgment to the Solicitors Regulation Authority within two working days. The court considered that referral to the regulator was proportionate.
2. Professional responsibility. AI tools can produce plausible but wholly inaccurate legal material, including fabricated statutory quotations. A lawyer using AI for legal research must check the output against authoritative sources before relying on it. That duty also applies to a lawyer relying on research undertaken by another person. Legal professionals cannot outsource legal research or reasoning to AI.
3. Supervision. Ms Poulton and Mr Cottee had a duty to check the purported statutory quotation and failed adequately to supervise the junior solicitor. Their lack of intention to mislead did not remove their responsibility for the misleading letters. There was at least a prima facie breach of the duties not to mislead the court and not to waste court time.
4. Response to false material. Applying the considerations identified in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the court considered the importance of proper standards, the circumstances in which the false material was produced, the absence of an immediate full and truthful explanation, mitigation, costs, effect on the underlying case and use of court resources.
5. Contempt. CPR 81.6(1) involves a two-stage process: whether contempt may have been committed and, if so, whether proceedings should be initiated. Mere negligence as to the falsity of material was insufficient for contempt proceedings against Mr Cottee and Ms Poulton. As to the junior solicitor, the court considered that further contempt investigation would be disproportionate, particularly given the limited harm, inexperience, Article 6 considerations and the SRA’s ability to investigate.
6. The court made no final findings of fact against the junior solicitor, who was not named. Pinsent Masons was to lodge a minute of order.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.