Select an area of expertise to find out more about our experience.
Find out more about our barristers and business support teams here.
Select an area of expertise to find out more about our experience.
Find out more about our barristers and business support teams here.
On 17 August 2026 the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) published a warning notice on the misuse of AI, which applies to all regulated individuals and firms. It highlights two principal concerns: inaccurate AI-generated content in court documents, and risks to client confidentiality from inputting sensitive information into AI tools.
(1) Hallucinated citations. The SRA notes it has received reports from the senior judiciary, alongside a number of solicitor self-reports, involving fabricated case law and citations produced by generative AI. It cites R (on the application of Ayinde) v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), in which AI-generated case citations later found to be false were submitted to the Court in two cases. The Judgment warned that placing fabricated citations before the Court was likely to trigger a referral to the regulator, regardless of whether AI was the underlying cause. The SRA also references BCP Council v A Mother [2026] EWFC 71 (B), involving an unregistered barrister acting as a litigant in person who was found to have misled the Court through AI hallucinations in her skeleton argument despite no deliberate intent to mislead; and Cork and another v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch), where the Court again reiterated the responsibilities on authorised persons in relation to unchecked AI hallucinations (which this time featured in letters to the Court). The SRA also draws on the established authority of Brett v The Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 2974 (Admin), which describes misleading the Court as ‘one of the most serious offences that an advocate or litigator can commit’ (§11).
(2) Confidentiality risks. The warning notice separately addresses the danger of entering client information into public AI tools. It cites UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), in which the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) commented on the potential for public AI tools to breach confidentiality and legal professional privilege, observing that inputting client and Home Office letters into an open-source tool such as ChatGPT effectively places that information in the public domain. It observed that closed source AI tools which do not place information in the public domain, such as Microsoft Copilot, are available for tasks such as summarising without these risks (see §21 of the Judgment).
Practical implications. Solicitors remain personally accountable for AI-assisted outputs, must verify all citations before submission, and must ensure adequate supervision of junior and unauthorised staff. The SRA notice draws attention to the relevant SRA Principles and Code of Conduct provisions that are engaged and warns that failure to heed the notice risks disciplinary action. It does, however, signpost solicitors to resources to assist them, including the Professional Ethics Guidance helpline.
AI has been used as an assistive tool in the drafting of this article
A monthly data protection bulletin from the barristers at 5 Essex Chambers
The Data Brief is edited by Francesca Whitelaw KC, Aaron Moss and John Goss, barristers at 5 Essex Chambers, with contributions from the whole information law, data protection and AI Team.
