Law Society pushes for clear AI rules after false-citation court cases

TL;DR:

• The Law Society of England and Wales has called on the British government and legal regulators to set out exactly how AI can be responsibly managed in court proceedings, following a series of cases featuring AI-generated false citations.
• The advisory Civil Justice Council is consulting on whether rules are needed; the Law Society wants the Solicitors Regulation Authority to review its code of conduct and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to introduce simple rules on AI use in court.
• The CJC has proposed mandatory declarations when AI is used to generate evidence — though not for transcription or spell-checking — a position the Law Society broadly supports.

Law Society chief executive Ian Jeffery said: “We need a balanced framework to support the use of AI in court proceedings. Artificial intelligence can improve efficiency and level the playing field for everyone to be able to access timely justice. However, there have to be safeguards for accuracy and fairness that build public trust in the system.” The Society is also pushing for a wider public debate on AI’s role across the justice system.

Why this is becoming urgent

The “AI hallucinated citations” problem has moved from isolated embarrassment to systemic risk in UK litigation over the past year. Courts have been presented with fabricated case names by both litigants in person and represented parties, and judges have responded with both wasted-costs orders and referrals to the SRA. Without a clear rulebook, individual judges are improvising responses — which is precisely the inconsistency the Law Society wants to head off.

Vendor side meets profession side

The Law Society’s call lands on the same day Anthropic announced a major expansion of Claude’s legal-research integrations, including direct access within Claude to Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw and CoCounsel, Harvey, Box, Everlaw and DocuSign — plus 12 new legal practice plug-ins covering commercial counsel, employment counsel, litigation associate and law student. The two stories are inseparable: vendor capability is racing ahead, regulator and professional guidance is lagging, and the Law Society is publicly asking for the latter to catch up.

Cross-jurisdiction context

The piece was reported via the Law Society of Ireland gazette and references Ms Justice Eileen Roberts of the Irish High Court, who told a webinar last week that the Irish judiciary is developing a detailed practice note on generative AI in litigation. That is the model the Law Society of England and Wales appears to want — a single, judiciary-issued practice note rather than a patchwork of professional guidance. The contrast with the Civil Justice Council’s slower consultation cycle is implicit but pointed.

Looking forward

The combination of the CJC consultation, Law Society pressure and HMCTS gradualism likely produces interim guidance within the next two quarters and a more durable rulebook within 12 months. For UK SMEs supplying legal technology — research tools, drafting assistants, redaction and review platforms — the disclosure regime under any final rules will sharpen procurement conversations. Firms will start asking whether tools log AI involvement at the document level in a way that supports CJC-style declarations; vendors that cannot answer cleanly will lose ground.