A recent decision of the English High Court has drawn attention to the risks associated with the use of unverified AI-generated content in legal proceedings.
The case, Anthony Malcolm Cork & Anor v Mark Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch), arose from a routine insolvency application in which solicitors submitted letters to the High Court referring to a supposed provision of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 that allegedly gave the court the power to grant a release to a liquidator. However, the alleged provision could not be found in the legislation. According to the judgment, the wording had been generated by an AI tool used by a junior solicitor during the drafting process and was later incorporated into the submissions without being independently verified by the supervising legal team. After the court raised concerns, the explanations provided were considered insufficient, leading the High Court to describe the failure to verify the rule as “inexcusable” and refer the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for further consideration.
This decision highlights the growing discussion around so-called “AI hallucinations”, where AI systems produce information that appears reliable but is inaccurate or entirely fabricated. While AI tools are increasingly used to assist with legal research and drafting, the judgment underlines that responsibility for the accuracy of court submissions remains with legal professionals.
More broadly, the decision may reflect a shift in England’s approach to AI-assisted legal work. The Law Society has recently called for clearer guidance from regulators and supported possible future amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), including potential transparency requirements regarding the use of AI in litigation.
As the use of AI becomes more common in legal practice, English courts and regulatory bodies appear to be placing greater emphasis on oversight, accountability and professional responsibility.
