Charman: Wasted costs orders reported to SRA anyway
A judge has decided against referring a solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for citing two fake cases generated by artificial intelligence (AI).
His Honour Judge Charman said the failure was “in substance a failure of management” at London and Kent law firm Gordon & Thompson, more than the failure of Raphael Newton as an individual solicitor.
HHJ Charman said that, in any event, his understanding was the fact he had made a wasted costs order against Gordon & Thompson meant the matter would automatically be referred to the SRA.
The judge said that, as stated in the leading case of Ayinde, where a lawyer cited false cases – whether due to the use of AI, without undertaking proper checks, or otherwise – it would “usually be appropriate for the court to refer the matter to the regulator”, and also consider other sanctions, including referring them to the police.
“In my judgement, from the evidence that I have heard, it was not Mr Newton that placed false material before the court, it was administrative staff at his firm.”
As a result, given the wasted costs order would be reported to the SRA, it was not appropriate to make a further specific referral of Mr Newton.
Delivering judgment at Birmingham County Court in Ndaryiyumvire v Brimingham City University – the outline of which we reported last month – HHJ Charman said the claimant made an application to amend her particulars of claim in July 2025, an application signed by Mr Newton.
It contained two authorities which the defendant’s solicitors asked Mr Newton to provide as they were unable to locate them. He then withdrew the document and filed a fresh version.
When this came before District Judge Bradshaw later that month and “it was pointed out to her that the first application referred to authorities that did not exist”, she asked Mr Newton to file and serve a witness statement.
At a subsequent hearing, the judge dismissed the application to amend, struck out the claim and ordered a further hearing. The university told Mr Newton it would be seeking wasted costs.
HHJ Charman said the citations attached to both purported cases were genuine but belonged to others. Both fake cases supported the argument that amendments to pleadings should be allowed.
The judge recounted how Mr Newton said the fake cases were generated by the built-in research function of the firm’s legal software.
The document he submitted was “a work in progress” drafted by another staff member which he had failed to review when it was filed in error by the administrative team. The judge found the solicitor’s explanation of how the draft came to be submitted “somewhat inadequate”.
Mr Newton said his error arose out of pressure of time, which the judge countered was “never an excuse for filing inaccurate or misleading documents”.
Mr Newton apologised to both the court and the defendant’s solicitors, adding that his firm has implemented measures to prevent recurrence, including mandatory verification of all legal citations by a solicitor before filing, labelling of drafts to avoid accidental filing, further staff training on document control, and signature protocols.
HHJ Charman said that given the “improper and unreasonable and negligent conduct and the failures in administration”, it was appropriate to make a wasted costs order against Gordon & Thompson.
He added: “Although any putting of false authorities before a court is a serious matter, within the range of those matters this case is not at the more serious end.
“The authorities were not referred to in a hearing, they were withdrawn relatively promptly and it would be wholly disproportionate in this case to consider matters such as contempt proceedings or a referral to the police.”
The judge noted too that the application to amend had actually been signed by a member of the administrative team, using Mr Newton’s initials. This was “a very serious breach of the relevant solicitors’ practice rules” as well but did not form part of the wasted costs decision.
Kaufman 
I’m glad I retired as a Deputy DJ in 2014 – the thought that in a busy applications list I might have to be checking authorities to see if they were genuine on top of everything else is the stuff of nightmares!