This case is all about one of our top firms of solicitors getting into trouble when using AI. But wait: I particularly want to coax my very enthusiastic QS friends who act as advocates in adjudication and arbitration to sit up and take note of what happened, because you may well mutter, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” Adjudication, in particular, sees non-lawyer advocates nowadays arguing their clients’ cases, and some of you are very good at it… some not!

The case is Cork & Anor vs Smith [22 May 2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch). It is all about “hallucinated” AI content. The solicitors’ job here was to make an application to the court about an insolvency matter. It was merely administrative and uncontentious. The task was placed in the hands of a recently qualified solicitor, who put the papers into court. No problem with all that.

The judge spotted a snag and sent a question to the solicitors, asking: “What power is there to order release?” Promptly the solicitor replied by letter. It all looked sound. But the judge was very familiar with this insolvency territory, and the answers came as a surprise to him, he said. He did what some (only some) adjudicators do: he checked out the rules for himself. The rules said nothing of the sort. Nothing rang true.

Read more…