ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE – PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS articles

Date

16 Jan 2026

Related Expertise

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is revolutionising commercial and private lives in a way that was not foreseeable only a decade or so ago. Its influence covers every imaginable field of human endeavour. As AI expands its reach and influence there are concerns surfacing about its potential adverse effects and these red flags demand a deeper discussion of its current dangers and limitations.

This certainly applies to potential pitfalls in its increasing use in the legal profession, particularly in the litigation area. There is a body of recent judicial decisions critiquing the indiscriminate use of AI. These decisions make it clear that there is an obligation on lawyers to ensure that the Court and opposing counsel are not misled by the use of AI. Lawyers must ensure that research undertaken using AI is reviewed and verified by the party relying on the AI-produced information.

In a recent Court of First Instance judgment Arabyads Holding Limited v Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam ¹, Justice Heath KC in the Abu Dhabi Global Markets Courts noted:

“…that ordinarily costs of the substantive hearing would be addressed summarily without the need for a publicly available released judgment. However, in the case, an important question of both principle and practice arises: In what circumstances should legal representation of a party be held liable to pay wasted costs arising out of the inappropriate use of AI in the preparation of Court documents?”

His Honour goes on at paragraph 41 of his judgment:

“In my view, lawyers using AI tools for research should start from the premise that all authorities and/or articles on a particular topic that are revealed by AI research may not necessarily be accurately summarized in the response or indeed may not exist. That puts the onus on a legal practitioner using AI for research purposes to verify the existence of authorities on which they wish to rely and to confirm that they stand for the propositions for which they are being offered for opposing counsel AND the Court. Without undertaking that verification task, the lawyer runs a serious risk that the Court may be misled.”

In his judgment, His Honour referred to the recent England and Wales decision of R (on the application of Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey ², where Dame Veronica Sharp P described the issues as follows:

“The referral arises out of the actual or suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked, so that false information (typically a false citation or quotation) is put before the Court. The facts of these cases raise concerns about the competence and conduct of individual lawyers who have been referred to the Court. They raise broader concern however as to the adequacy of the training, supervision and regulation of those who practise before the courts, and as to the practical steps taken by those with responsibilities in those areas to ensure that lawyers who conduct litigation understand and comply with their professional and ethical responsibilities and their duties to the court.

Artificial intelligence is a powerful technology. It can be a useful tool in litigation, both civil and criminal. It is used for example to assist in the management of large disclosure exercises in the Business and Property Courts. A recent report into disclosure in cases of fraud before the criminal courts has recommended the creation of a cross-agency protocol covering the ethical and appropriate use of artificial intelligence in the analysis and disclosure of investigative material. Artificial intelligence is likely to have a continuing and important role in the conduct of litigation in the future.

This comes with an important proviso, however. Artificial intelligence is a tool that carries risks as well as opportunities. Its use must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained. As Dias J said when referring to the case of Al-Horoun to this court, the administration of justice depends on the court being able to rely without question on the integrity of those who appear before it and on their professionalism in only making submissions which can be properly supported.”

In the Arabyads Holding Limited v Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam decision, Justice Heath KC made indemnity orders in respect of wasted costs against the lawyers for the defendant who relied upon the flawed AI material. He had no doubt that the legal representatives of the Plaintiff spent considerable and unnecessary time reviewing the Defence and associated documents.

Whilst His Honour found that there was not a deliberate intention to mislead the Court by the Defendant’s lawyers, he stated that the way in which they chose to research for and prepare the Defence was a deliberate choice. As a result, those lawyers filed a Defence that was both prolix and referred to authorities which either did not exist or did not stand for the proposition for which they had been cited. That conduct, His Honour determined, in particular the lawyers’ failure to verify whatever legal research was undertaken through AI, was reckless and amounted to a breach of the ADGM Courts Rules of Conduct 2016 (rule 4(6) :

“Lawyers must not attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the Courts by making incorrect or misleading statements of fact or law to the Courts and shall take all necessary steps to correct any incorrect or misleading statement of fact or law at the earliest opportunity.”

Lawyers should be exceedingly vigilant in the use of AI whilst undertaking professional services and, in particular, in litigation practice. This may well become the position for all providers of professional services in the near future. Failure to be vigilant may result in potential cost awards and improper professional conduct allegations.