Hallucinations
-
The Solicitors Regulation Authority Proposes to Reflect Technology and AI Within Solicitors' Existing Competences Rather Than as a Standalone Competence
In a consultation open from October 8 to December 3, 2026, the regulator of solicitors in England and Wales proposes changes to the statement of the competence it expects of solicitors, among them references to technology and AI in ethics, in research and drafting, and in supervising others.
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Cases and sanctions
An Orange County Appeals Court Sanctions a Supervising Lawyer Who Says He Reviewed a Petition's Arguments but Not Its Citations
In an order of August 2026, the appellate division of Orange County's superior court in California sanctions two lawyers, one of them the supervising attorney, who did not review the citations, over a petition whose table of authorities listed four cases that "appeared to have been fabricated" by generative AI.
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Cases and sanctions
California's Office of Tax Appeals Says an Appellant Cited Opinions of the Tribunal That Do Not Exist
In a precedential opinion issued on May 15, 2026, California's Office of Tax Appeals says an appellant in a sales tax case cited opinions of the tribunal that do not exist, and that parties and representatives appearing before it "are expected to know about the risk of AI hallucination."
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Cases and sanctions
The Sixth Circuit Says Citing Real Cases Did Not Absolve a Lawyer Whose AI-Drafted Briefs Carried False Quotations
In an opinion of April 3, 2026, recommended for publication, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said that an appointed lawyer, by the lawyer's own admission, used artificial intelligence to draft two briefs and filed them without properly verifying the cited authorities, and ordered that the lawyer not be paid under the Criminal Justice Act for the time spent on the appeal.
-
When AI-prepared work goes wrong Liability and insurance
The SRA Warns That Solicitors and Regulated Individuals Who Use AI Remain Accountable for Their Work, Regardless of How It Was Prepared
In a warning notice published on August 17, 2026, the Solicitors Regulation Authority said that solicitors and regulated individuals who use AI in delivering legal services "remain accountable for their work and outputs, regardless of how that work has been prepared," named two areas of particular concern, false or incorrect information in court and other documents, including citations, and client confidentiality, and said that those who do not have proper regard to the notice are at risk of disciplinary action.
-
Professional ethics Judgment and competence
Australia's Ethics Standard Setter Says Members of the Australian Accounting Bodies Who Use AI Remain Responsible for the Outcomes
In a technical alert of October 31, 2025, Australia's Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board told professional accountants who are members of the Australian Accounting Bodies that when they use AI they "must continue to meet their ethical obligations" under the APES 110 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, and that they remain responsible for the outcomes.
-
Regulators and standard setters Tax
HMRC Says Generative AI in Tax Software Should Support, Not Replace, Human Judgment
On January 28, 2026, the UK's HMRC published guidelines for software developers who use generative AI in commercial products that help customers submit information to it. Such software, it says, "should support, not replace, human judgment," and should clearly remind users that making sure each tax return is accurate is their responsibility.
