A senior UK judge, Victoria Sharp, has issued a strong warning to legal professionals about the dangers of using AI tools like ChatGPT to cite fabricated legal cases. This caution follows incidents in London's High Court where lawyers submitted AI-generated legal arguments supported by fictitious case law. Judge Sharp emphasized that this practice seriously risks undermining the integrity of the justice system and eroding public trust in legal proceedings. She reminded lawyers of their ethical duties when employing emerging digital tools, noting that while AI can aid research and drafting, absolute diligence is needed to verify the accuracy and authenticity of materials presented in court. Fabricating or relying on false legal authorities is not just an academic error but could lead to significant legal consequences. The warning came after two recent High Court cases where AI-generated references to unverifiable cases were scrutinized, sparking judicial concern over increasing reliance on AI outputs without sufficient human oversight. Judge Sharp criticized current guidelines on AI use in law as inadequate and urged regulators, professional bodies, and industry leaders to establish stronger frameworks and educational initiatives to reinforce attorneys’ ethical responsibilities in this evolving field. This issue gains urgency amid rapid adoption of generative AI across professions, particularly in law where correctness is crucial. Submitting knowingly false evidence can amount to perverting the course of justice, carrying penalties including contempt of court and criminal charges. The call for tighter regulation and ethical oversight reflects worldwide concerns about integrating AI into sensitive professions, balancing AI’s benefits for efficiency and innovation against risks to justice and fairness. In the UK legal context, lawyers must uphold the integrity of legal processes and act honestly in court dealings.

Using AI tools does not relieve them of these obligations but heightens the need for vigilance and verification. Legal educators are also encouraged to incorporate AI literacy and ethics into training to prepare practitioners for technological challenges. The judiciary is closely monitoring misuse of AI and is prepared to impose strict sanctions for submitting false or misleading materials, aiming to protect both justice administration and public confidence. As AI becomes more pervasive in law, the profession must adopt these tools responsibly. Judge Sharp’s warnings serve as both caution and a call to action to ensure technology supports rather than undermines the rule of law. In summary, employing AI in legal research and argumentation demands the highest integrity standards. Failure can lead to professional discipline and criminal liability. All legal sector stakeholders are urged to collaborate on clearer guidelines, improved education, and cultivating ethical awareness regarding AI’s role in legal practice. This development also highlights the broader societal challenge of managing AI’s impact on critical institutions, underscoring the need to balance innovation with maintaining trust and accountability in justice systems.