A foreign lawyer has been struck off the register of foreign lawyers after using artificial intelligence to prepare responses containing false and misleading case citations during disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
The tribunal’s decision involved Abishek Kumar, who was already facing disciplinary proceedings following his criminal conviction for knowingly employing a person who was not permitted to work in the UK.
Kumar had been convicted in 2024 after employing an individual who had been an overstayer in the UK since 2013 and whose asylum claim had been withdrawn in 2019. The individual was paid cash for administrative work. Kumar subsequently received a 12-month community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, with the sentencing judge stating that he had sought to undermine UK immigration laws.
The disciplinary proceedings before the SDT later raised a separate issue concerning the use of AI in legal submissions.
In March this year, Kumar submitted a written response to the allegations made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The response contained a number of case citations and quotations that were found to be misleading or incorrect.
Among the authorities cited was a case from a different year, another case concerning intellectual property, and a further decision involving an unsuccessful SRA appeal in the High Court. The tribunal found that these authorities were either incorrectly cited or irrelevant to the issues being considered.
When the SRA challenged the accuracy of the citations and referred to an earlier High Court decision involving AI-generated case authorities, Kumar acknowledged that he had used AI to assist in preparing his response.
He subsequently provided another set of citations and explanations intended to demonstrate their relevance. However, the tribunal concluded that these provided limited assistance and did not adequately resolve the problems identified in his original submission.
The issue arose again when Kumar was asked to explain the contents of his response. He admitted that he had again used AI to prepare an email explaining the citations. That email also contained further mistakes and erroneous references.
Kumar apologised to the tribunal and maintained that he had never intended to act dishonestly. He explained that he was accustomed to working under supervision and said that he had not understood the seriousness of using AI-generated authorities without independently checking them.
The tribunal nevertheless took a serious view of the repeated failure to verify the information submitted during the disciplinary proceedings.
The SDT emphasised the potential consequences of submitting inaccurate authorities to regulators and tribunals, particularly where those authorities have been generated or assisted by artificial intelligence but have not been properly checked by the lawyer responsible for the submission.
The tribunal stated that the repeated failure to verify the submissions had serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the legal profession. It considered protection of the reputation of the profession to be paramount.
The tribunal also noted that Kumar would have been struck off the register of foreign lawyers even without the AI-related allegations, meaning that the outcome was not based solely on his use of artificial intelligence.
Kumar had argued against being struck off, referring to personal and health circumstances and his role as the principal financial provider for his family. However, the tribunal ultimately ordered that he be struck off the register of foreign lawyers.
No order for costs was made.
The decision represents a significant warning about the responsibilities of lawyers using generative AI in legal work. While AI tools can assist with drafting and research, legal professionals remain responsible for checking the accuracy of case authorities, quotations and other material before submitting them to a court, tribunal or regulator.
The case also highlights the growing professional and regulatory risks associated with relying on AI-generated legal information without appropriate verification. As the use of AI becomes increasingly common across the legal sector, lawyers must ensure that technology does not replace the professional judgment and verification expected of them.
