MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) Bangladesh
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
The decision addresses professional conduct concerns arising from AI‑generated documents in a Bangladeshi asylum case.
What happened
The barrister, Mr. Rahman, represented an appellant in an asylum case but cited a non-existent authority in the grounds of appeal, which he had generated using ChatGPT. This misrepresentation led to a referral to the Bar Standards Board after the Upper Tribunal found that his conduct breached professional duties.
What the court decided
The Upper Tribunal held that a barrister had cited a non-existent authority ("Y (China) [2010] EWCA Civ 116") in grounds of appeal that he had drafted using ChatGPT, maintained the fake citation was genuine when challenged (handing up a printout of false references), and had failed to verify it against reputable legal sources such as Bailii, Westlaw or LexisNexis. The Tribunal ruled this conduct breached the barrister's professional duties of honesty and integrity and was not excused by illness or time pressure, holding that using AI in a way that produces false authorities is a serious professional failing. The disposition was a referral of the barrister to the Bar Standards Board (his second such referral); the Tribunal did not grant the individual relief on the merits of the immigration appeal in this reported professional-conduct decision.
How the court got there
The court decided to refer Mr. Rahman to the Bar Standards Board because he failed to verify the accuracy of the legal citations he presented, which is a fundamental professional responsibility. The Tribunal emphasized that using AI tools without proper checks can mislead the court and undermine public confidence in the legal profession.
Statutes and cases cited
- § Refugee Convention art. 33
- Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister
Categories
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.