A barrister representing two women in an asylum case was found to have relied on artificial intelligence (AI) to help draft legal documents.
According to a report by The Guardian, the case involved two sisters from Honduras who were seeking protection in the UK after claiming a criminal group had threatened them.
Their appeal reached the Upper Tribunal, where barrister Chowdhury Rahman presented their case.
Did you know?
Subscribe – We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!
How to Pick the Right DeFi dApp? (Dos and Don’ts Explained)
Judge Mark Blundell rejected the arguments Rahman put forward. According to him, there was no mistake in the decision made by the earlier judge. However, the judge’s concerns went beyond the appeal itself.
Rahman had listed 12 legal cases in his paperwork. When the judge examined them, he found that some cases were entirely fabricated, while others lacked relevance or failed to support the arguments made.
Judge Blundell identified 10 of these citations and described how they were used.
He noted that Rahman seemed unfamiliar with the cases he had included and had not planned to refer to them in his spoken arguments.
Rahman explained that the confusion was due to his writing style and said he used several websites during his research. However, the judge stated that the issue was not about unclear writing but about using references that were either false or unrelated.
Judge Blundell said the most likely reason for these problems was the use of an AI tool like ChatGPT to draft parts of the appeal.
Recently, Eliza Labs, a company behind ElizaOS, filed a lawsuit against X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk. What happened? Read the full story.
