SDT: First case of its kind
A registered foreign lawyer who used misleading AI-generated quotes and citations in defending a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) case against him has been struck off.
Abhishek Kumar was initially referred to the SDT after being convicted of knowingly employing an adult who was disqualified from employment by reason of immigration status.
His use of AI in formulating the defence he sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority was then added to the charges.
The SDT said he would have been struck off on the basis of either offence.
It is the first time that the tribunal has had to deal with the issue of AI hallucinations.
Mr Kumar, 41, became a registered foreign lawyer in 2018. He had been representing a client on immigration matters whilst operating through a firm called Kim’s Law.
The client’s asylum application was withdrawn in 2019 and bid for leave to remain refused soon after, meaning he had no right to live or work in the UK.
In August 2020, when Mr Kumar was employed by now-defunct Rivington Solicitors, Home Office investigators attended the firm and spoke to the client, who confirmed that he worked there in an administrative capacity and was paid cash in hand.
Mr Kumar was convicted in 2024 and sentenced to a 12-month community order and unpaid work of 150 hours.
He told the SDT that he had originally pleaded not guilty and only changed his plea because he was suffering from severe physical and mental health difficulties and felt incapable of enduring a full criminal trial.
After Mr Kumar filed and served his answer to the SRA’s allegations earlier this year, counsel for the regulator identified incorrect quotations and citations “which did not reflect the legal propositions outlined”.
In reply, Mr Kumar admitted using generative AI to assist him in drafting it but the response was itself drafted using AI and contained further false material.
He contended that he had not intended to mislead the tribunal or the SRA, explaining that he “simply did not have the expertise to verify the AI output”.
Mr Kumar argued that the conduct amounted to incompetence and poor judgment arising from severe health difficulties rather than a lack of integrity or an intentional effort to deceive.
In his oral submissions, he described himself as an unqualified lawyer who was used to being supervised, and that the High Court authority on the misuse of AI, Ayinde, did not directly apply to him as he was an RFL and not a solicitor.
He said that he was not aware of what was going on in the legal world.
The SDT did not accept this. He was a regulated individual “who was obliged to comply with the standards of his profession” and he had breach various rules, including paragraph 2.4 (“You only make assertions or put forward statements, representations or submissions to the court or others which are properly arguable”).
Two of the cases cited were relied upon for propositions they authorities did not support, and therefore amounted to unarguable submissions.
The SDT held that, through his conviction, Mr Kumar had failed to uphold the rule of law and the administration of justice.
“His actions in offering the client informal employment were planned and a breach of his position of trust. He was an immigration specialist who understood that what he was doing was outside the law…
“He exploited the client and took advantage of a vulnerable person by paying low, cash in hand wages. This abuse of a position of authority was an aggravating factor, as was the commission of a criminal offence, and the placing of blame on outside causes.”
His culpability for the AI errors was similarly “very high” and he showed a “persistent lack of insight into his misconduct”.
The SDT went on: “The tribunal found that [he] had embarked on the use of AI without giving any proper thought to the consequences of so doing. He had failed to take proper steps to ensure his work output was accurate or to satisfy himself that the electronic tools he was seeking to use were reliable.”
The tribunal also gave “very substantial weight” to how he used AI to respond the errors his initial use of AI had caused, while his medical evidence did not excuse his actions.
It added: “The tribunal was clear that the sanction it reached was the same sanction it would have imposed if either allegation had appeared before the tribunal without the other.”
The SDT struck Mr Kumar from the register of foreign lawyers. The SRA accepted that he was impecunious and did not seek an order for costs.
The tribunal noted that “on a case-by-case basis there may be a difference between harm (and culpability) in a respondent citing cases or propositions that did not exist, as distinct from providing incorrect citations”.
Leave a Comment