Mark Mullen called out a partner and a solicitor for failing to check a junior lawyer’s work for AI hallucinations
UK Insolvency and Companies Court judge Mark Mullen has lambasted global firm Pinsent Masons over twice misusing artificial intelligence in its work.
The judge called out London-based partner Steven Cottee and solicitor Samantha Poulton for failing to check the work of a junior lawyer, whose name was not disclosed. The junior lawyer, who was given the moniker “LA,” had included AI-hallucinated references in the firm’s submissions in the matter of Cork & Anor v Smith.
The firm had been engaged to represent the applicants in the case, which involved a March 17 block transfer application. While such matters typically did not require proceedings to be held, Mullen had directed the matter’s listing due to concerns raised about “misleading statements” Pinsent Masons made in letters to the court.
Mullen had flagged an inaccuracy in the citation of Rule 12.37(5) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 in a Pinsent Masons letter dated March 30, which he suspected was the result of an AI hallucination. The judge found the firm’s April 14 response to his callout “impossible to accept” and “not credible,” per his ruling dated May 22; he expressed concern that Pinsent Masons was taking a “cavalier attitude” regarding the accuracy of court submissions.
A team from Irwin Mitchell LLP took over in acting for the applicants in Cork & Anor v Smith. Mullen said in his ruling that Cottee, Poulton, and presumably LA “will have found this incident very embarrassing.”
“Ms Poulton and Mr Cottee are experienced solicitors undertaking technical work in a reputable firm, no doubt under considerable pressure at times. I have no doubt that LA was working under pressure too. None of that excuses a failure to check the accuracy of the material that was placed before the court,” Mullen said in the decision. ““AI has the potential to be wholly unreliable. AI may of course provide a jumping off point for research and legal reasoning but it does not, at least at present, do away with the need for proper research and thought on the part of a legal professional, even a very junior legal professional.”
The judge noted that the AI chat transcripts provided by Pinsent Masons were indicative of a “serious lack of care and of judgment on the part of LA rather than a want of honesty.” Mullen accepted that neither Cottee nor Poulton intended to mislead as they appeared unaware that AI had been used in the application; nonetheless, he criticized Poulton for failing to recognize that his callout should have led her to investigate whether LA had used AI.
If an appropriate apology had been issued, the judge said he would have determined that no further action needed to be taken apart from the firm shouldering the clients’ costs in relation to the letter.
During the May 18 hearing over which Mullen presided, Pinsent Masons’ legal representative Paul Mitchell told the court that the firm had referred itself to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and would cooperate with related investigations. The firm would also take on the costs its ex-clients incurred due to the incident.
