R (on the application of Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey
Practitioners who use AI to prepare documents put before a court remain responsible for supervision and accuracy. Failure to check AI-assisted work may…
Practitioners who use AI to prepare documents put before a court remain responsible for supervision and accuracy. Failure to check AI-assisted work may attract regulatory referral and serious disciplinary consequences. Cited and reinforced in Hamid [2026] UKUT 81.
Key provisions
supervisory obligation — Practitioner remains responsible for accuracy of AI-assisted documents: A practitioner who uses AI to draft or prepare a document put before a court or tribunal remains responsible for the accuracy and integrity of that document. Failure to supervise / check AI output may result in regulatory referral and serious disciplinary consequences.
When relevant
Any context where AI-assisted documentation is being put before a court, tribunal, regulator, or instructing solicitor; informs the practice's quality-review process for AI-assisted deliverables.
Take this further
Assess your organisation
See how your policies and practice measure up against this authority — and the other 121 in the catalogue — with the toolkit's free diagnostic.
We use analytics cookies to understand how visitors use this site so we can improve it. We
only set them if you accept. See our privacy policy for details.