Litigation and Artificial Intelligence: Where are we now?

Cork and another v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch) and the use of Artificial Intelligence

In the recent case of Cork and another v Smith, the High Court publicly admonished a law firm and two of its solicitors (a senior associate and partner) after they had produced and submitted two AI-generated letters to the court containing misleading and false information in relation to a block transfer application made under Rule 12.37 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.

Evidence provided by the firm demonstrated that a junior solicitor had utilised an AI tool that was being piloted by the firm to undertake some research and produce a letter to the court. However, the AI tool had altered the purported text of the Insolvency Rules and therefore set out text which did not exist. When challenged on this by the Court, the firm did not correct the error but used AI further in an attempt to explain away the non-existent Rule it had previously sought to rely on.

The Judge had accepted that the senior associate and partner had not intended to mislead the court and were not aware that AI had been used. Additionally, the firm had self-referred themselves to the SRA. However, the solicitors had not adequately supervised the junior associate, nor did they check the purported text of the Rule, even when prompted to do so by the AI tool.

Ultimately, the Judge decided that public admonishment, along with the SRA self-referral, was an appropriate response. The Judge also concluded that starting contempt proceedings against the junior would be inappropriate given the junior’s lack of experience, the limited harm done and the SRA referral.

You can access the full judgment here: Anthony Malcolm Cork & Anor v Mark Smith – Find Case Law – The National Archives

The risks and responsibilities of using AI in legal practice

Although the use of AI within the legal sector is no doubt the future, we are constantly reminded of the need to use such tools responsibly and intelligently. This case is one of a string of recent cases in which AI has hallucinated case law or legislation, and should be a salutary reminder to all those within the legal sphere that they still bear the ultimate responsibility to undertake their work with appropriate care and must check the output of AI tools

Law Society calls for safe and responsible AI use

On 12 May 2026, the Law Society called for various measures to ensure AI is used safely and responsibly when applied to court documents.

The Law Society seeks an incremental approach to new rules and regulations rather than a sudden change to the Civil Procedure Rules. It says that such an approach will offer transparency and certainty for solicitors using AI tools, which will, in turn, increase the likelihood that AI will be used safely when applied to court documents.

If the Law Society’s recommendations are adopted, solicitors can expect:

1. Guidance on how professional conduct applies to the use of AI tools;
2. Guidance relating to AI training and the governance required to allow the responsible use of AI in court;
3. Guidance from the court to specify expectations and obligations for all those using AI in court, including litigants in person.
4. The chance to input into a wider review of the use of AI within the judicial system.
5. New, clear and practical obligations to disclose the use of AI or rather a declaration on non-use in certain circumstances when using AI to complete court documents.

For further information, please see: Use of AI for preparing court documents consultation – Law Society response | The Law Society

Contact our litigation team

For expert advice on using AI in litigation or support with compliance and risk management in your practice, contact our litigation team today.