TL;DR

The Bar Council has issued updated guidance for barristers using AI tools like ChatGPT, following multiple High Court cases involving fabricated judgments. The guidance emphasises that responsibility for accuracy remains entirely with the barrister, regardless of AI assistance.

AI Hallucinations Reach the Courtroom

The legal profession faces a growing challenge as AI-generated fabrications make their way into court proceedings. The Bar Council’s refreshed guidance arrives after recent High Court rulings exposed instances where lawyers inadvertently cited entirely made-up cases, highlighting the risks of over-reliance on large language models.

The updated advice covers popular AI tools including Google’s Gemini, Perplexity, Harvey, and Microsoft Copilot. It identifies key risks that legal professionals must navigate: hallucinations, information disorder, bias in training data, factual errors, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Crucially, it reminds practitioners that AI systems lack conscience and emotional intelligence.

Professional Responsibility Unchanged

Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council, addressed the urgency of the situation directly: “Recent case law, including the High Court judgment, emphasises the dangers of the misuse by lawyers of artificial intelligence, particularly large language models, and its serious implications for public confidence in the administration of justice.”

The guidance makes clear that whilst AI tools can assist case preparation, the fundamental responsibility for accuracy, confidentiality, and compliance with professional rules remains squarely with the barrister. This principle applies regardless of how sophisticated the AI tool claims to be.

Looking Forward

The Bar Council acknowledges that AI adoption in legal services is both inevitable and accelerating. The guidance encourages barristers to understand how these systems work rather than treating them as black boxes. Those who invest time in comprehending AI capabilities and limitations will be best positioned to use these tools with integrity. The guidance also reminds practitioners that authoritative legal sources remain available through the Inns of Court libraries—a pointed reminder that traditional research methods haven’t become obsolete.

Source: Legal Cheek