news briefAI HallucinationsAI in CourtsAI Governance

SDT strikes off foreign lawyer after AI-generated false citations

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the register after AI-generated false citations appeared in his defence to SRA proceedings.

Edited and verified by Cognesio LLP

Researched with AI assistance · sources verified by Cognesio LLP · How this was made ↓

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in England and Wales struck Registered Foreign Lawyer Abhishek Kumar off the register in a judgment dated 25 August 2026, after finding that his defence to SRA proceedings relied on AI-generated citations and quotations that did not exist or did not say what he claimed.

In the United Kingdom, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Registered Foreign Lawyer Abhishek Kumar off the register after he used generative AI to file false citations and misleading quotations in his defence to SRA proceedings, then used AI again in an attempted explanation that contained further errors.

What the tribunal found

The SRA brought disciplinary proceedings after Kumar’s 2024 conviction for knowingly employing an adult who was disqualified from working in the UK. The AI issue arose inside the disciplinary case, not the criminal case.

Kumar filed his answer to the SRA’s Rule 12 statement on 12 March 2026. The tribunal recorded that the answer contained misleading quotations and citations because of his use of artificial generative intelligence. After the SRA drew the problem to his attention and referred him to Ayinde v Haringey, Kumar sent a 9 April email admitting AI use. That email contained further erroneous citations and quotations. On 13 April, he accepted that the email had also been drafted using generative AI and contained inaccuracies.

The tribunal found that the cited authorities either did not exist, had incorrect citations, misquoted legal principles, lacked the passages attributed to them, or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. It found breaches of SRA Principles 1, 2 and 5 and Code paragraph 1.4 on not misleading the court; it found Code paragraph 2.4 proved in part for the Day and Baxendale-Walker submissions.

At paragraph 28.16, the tribunal wrote: “The repeated disregard for verifying submissions to the regulator and to the Tribunal had serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the legal system.” The tribunal’s published case summary records that this was the first time a lawyer’s use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings had been litigated before it.

What it means

  • The decision applies the verification duty inside regulator and tribunal proceedings, not only court litigation.
  • The tribunal treated a second AI-assisted explanation with new false material as part of the misconduct.
  • The order records strike-off from the Register of Foreign Lawyers and no costs order.

Record: SRA v Abhishek Kumar.

Sources