The tribunal found that [he] had embarked on the use of AI without giving any proper thought to the consequences of so doing. He had failed to take proper steps to ensure his work output was accurate or to satisfy himself that the electronic tools he was seeking to use were reliable. [...] The tribunal was clear that the sanction it reached was the same sanction it would have imposed if either allegation had appeared before the tribunal without the other.
Abhishek Kumar, a registered foreign lawyer in England and Wales, was before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal over a 2024 criminal conviction. He defended himself, and the written answer he sent the Solicitors Regulation Authority carried quotations and citations that did not support what he had cited them for. When the regulator's counsel identified them, he emailed to explain and apologise, and that email had been drafted with AI as well and contained further false material. He told the tribunal he had not meant to mislead anybody and "simply did not have the expertise to verify the AI output", and that the High Court's ruling on the misuse of AI did not reach him because he was a registered foreign lawyer rather than a solicitor. The tribunal held he was a regulated individual obliged to comply with the standards of his profession, found his culpability very high and struck him from the register on 4 September 2026. It is the first time the tribunal has had to deal with AI hallucinations. It also said plainly that either allegation on its own would have produced the same sanction, so this is not a case where AI cost somebody a career that was otherwise intact.
