Lawyers could face ‘severe’ penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns

The Supreme Court of England and Wales says that lawyers need stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work.

In a ruler linking two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that the tools of obstetric intelligence, such as Chatgpt “are not able to conduct reliable legal research.”

Judge Sharp wrote: “Such tools can produce coherent and reasonable responses on the claims, but those coherent and reasonable responses may turn to being completely incorrect,” Judge Sharp wrote. “The responses may make the confident assurances incorrect.”

This does not mean that lawyers cannot use artificial intelligence in their research, but she said that they have a professional duty “to verify the accuracy of such research by referring to reliable sources, before using them during their professional work.”

Judge Sharp suggested that the increasing number of cases in which lawyers (including, on the American side, the lawyers who represent the main Amnesty International platforms) seem to be a false creation of artificial intelligence indicating that “more guidance must be made to follow the lawyer and lawyers.

In one of the concerned cases, a lawyer who represented a man looking for damage against Benkin presented a presentation with 45 quotes – 18 of those cases did not exist, while many other cases “did not contain the price offers attributed to them, and the sharp judge did not support the proposals that were martyred, and had no connection with the issue in the request.”

In the other, a lawyer who represented a man who was evacuated from his home in London wrote, calling for files, quoting five cases that did not exist. (The lawyer denied the use of artificial intelligence, although she said the categories may be a summary of artificial intelligence that appeared in “Google or Safari”.

She added: “Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this regard risk the severe punishment.”

Both lawyers have been referred or referred to professional organizers. Judge Sharp indicated that when the lawyers do not fulfill their duties before the court, the court’s powers range from “general warning” to the imposition of costs, contempt procedures, or even “referral to the police.”