The Bar Council has updated its ethics guidance on considerations that barristers should have if using ChatGPT or any other generative artificial intelligence (AI) software based on large language models.
In this blog, our policy analyst, Enehuwa Adagu, outlines recent case law on the use of AI by barristers and the changes that have been made to our AI guidance.
Will AI transform the legal profession in coming years? This question is at the forefront of the debate on AI use within the legal profession. Academics have aptly identified that the stakes of this debate are enormous, with billions of pounds being invested into AI-driven legal startups.
Clearly, AI has the potential to transform the legal landscape, not only how legal services are delivered by lawyers but also which legal services members of the public continue to seek from legal professionals. In hoping to harness the potential of AI, it is vital to understand both the practical and ethical limitations of using any generative AI tool.
Recent case law on the use of AI by barristers
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)
In this case, the claimant brought judicial review proceedings against the defendant, the London Borough of Haringey, in relation to a failure to provide interim accommodation. The grounds for judicial review contained misinterpretations of the relevant legislation and 5 cases that do not exist. The barrister in this case denied using AI to assist her with legal research. The Divisional Court concluded that the barrister did not provide a “coherent explanation for what happened.”
The court also concluded that the threshold to initiate contempt proceedings had been met, either because the barrister had deliberately used fake citations or because generative AI had been used to draft the grounds for judicial review and the denial of this by the barrister was untruthful. Despite this threshold being met, the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings due to factual issues and questions about the barrister’s training.
The Divisional Court made observations regarding the use of AI in court proceedings. It was highlighted that while AI is a powerful form of technology, it comes with an important caveat – that it must be used with an appropriate degree of oversight and within a regulatory framework to ensure adherence to well established professional and ethical standards. It was identified that there are “serious implications on the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if AI is misused” and that in future cases, the legal profession should expect the court to inquire as to whether those with individual leadership responsibilities have fulfilled them.
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) Bangladesh [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC)
This case involved an appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), where the barrister included a false citation in the grounds of appeal. The Upper Tribunal provided the barrister with a copy of the Ayinde judgment and asked him to reconsider his position. Following this, the barrister then undertook research via ChatGPT, which by his account, confirmed that the citation for the non-existent case was correct.
The barrister in this case admitted to using ChatGPT to draft the grounds of appeal and, when he appeared before the Upper Tribunal Panel, he accepted not using any reputable legal databases such as Westlaw and Lexis Nexis to check his work. The court held that the barrister directly misled the tribunal by relying on a fake case and that he likely did not understand the limitations of ChatGPT until he read the Ayinde judgment and attended further professional training. Here, the court also did not initiate contempt proceedings because they concluded that false material was not deliberately placed before the tribunal.
However, in both cases, each barrister was reported to the Bar Standards Board.
Changes to our AI guidance
In light of recent case law, we have updated our ethics guidance. Changes include:
- Reference to new generative AI tools based on large language models (LLMs) such as Google’s Gemini, Perplexity, Harvey, and Microsoft Copilot
- Explaining that the guidance applies to LLM software specifically aimed at lawyers
- Highlighting that LLMs do not have a conscience or social and emotional intelligence
- Reference to recent case law on the use of LLMs by lawyers
- Reference to an academic study that assessed the reliability of AI legal research tools
- Explaining that barristers can access authoritative legal resources at the Inns of Court libraries
- The cyber security vulnerabilities that arise when using LLMs
- That the ultimate responsibility for all legal work remains with the barrister
- Restating the importance of respecting legal professional privilege, confidentiality, and complying with data protection regulations
- Expanding on the interaction between intellectual property law and LLMs
We encourage all barristers and chambers to review our updated guidance if using any form of generative AI, so that they are well equipped to make appropriate use of them in their work and they are not at risk of ‘scoring an own goal’.
Read our updated guidance on the Ethics and Practice hub.
Further reading
Daniel Schwarcz, Sam Manning, Patrick Barry, David Cleveland, JJ Prescott, Beverly Rich, AI-Powered Lawyering: AI Reasoning Models, Retrieval Augmented Generation, and the Future of Legal Practice - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5162111
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey, Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1383.html
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Professional Conduct: AI Generated Documents) Bangladesh [2025] UKUT 305 (IAC) - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2025/305.html
Enehuwa Adagu is a Policy Analyst for Legal Practice and Remuneration at the Bar Council and serves as the executive for the Legal Services Committee and IT Panel. Enehuwa was called to the Bar by Inner Temple in 2022.