A barrister has come under fire for relying on artificial intelligence to draft legal submissions that included “entirely fictitious” case citations, according to a report in The Times UK. Chowdhury Rahman, an experienced immigration law specialist, represented two Honduran sisters seeking asylum when it emerged that some of the authorities cited in his submissions to the Upper Tribunal were either wholly irrelevant or did not exist.
Judge Mark Blundell, presiding over the appeal, said Rahman, who has been a member of the Bar for 19 years, used AI tools to prepare his submissions but failed to verify the accuracy of the material. The judge described the barrister’s conduct as a deliberate attempt to conceal his reliance on artificial intelligence, resulting in a “waste of the tribunal’s time.” Blundell indicated that he would consider reporting Rahman to the Bar Standards Board, the professional watchdog for barristers.
The case involved two sisters, aged 29 and 35, who claimed asylum on the grounds that they had been targeted by a notorious criminal gang in Honduras. The women alleged the gang had threatened to kill them and their families if they did not comply, prompting them to seek protection in the UK after arriving at Heathrow in 2022. Their asylum applications were rejected by the Home Office in 2023, and subsequent appeals to lower and upper tribunals were unsuccessful, with Rahman acting as their legal representative.
Blundell highlighted “significant problems” in Rahman’s grounds of appeal, noting that some of the 12 cited authorities were entirely fabricated and others did not support the legal propositions for which they were referenced. The judge suggested that the most plausible explanation was that the appeal documents had been drafted, in whole or in part, by generative AI such as ChatGPT. Rahman did not respond to requests for comment on the ruling.
The incident underscores growing concerns over the use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. In June, Lady Justice Sharp warned that improper AI use posed “serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system.” She urged legal professionals to ensure that all AI-assisted submissions comply with ethical and professional obligations, emphasizing that future High Court hearings may scrutinize the responsible use of AI by barristers.
As AI tools become increasingly integrated into the legal profession, Rahman’s case serves as a cautionary example of the potential consequences when automation is relied upon without rigorous oversight, highlighting the risks to both the integrity of legal proceedings and public trust in the justice system.
