An immigration lawyer was accused of using tools of artificial intelligence (AI)like ChatGPTto prepare his legal investigation in an asylum case, which generated great controversy. Chowdhury Rahman He appeared in court, where the judge was perplexed to note that his arguments cited cases that were «entirely fictitious» or «totally irrelevant.»
The judge of the Superior Court, Mark Blundellruled that Rahman had not only used AI to formulate their allegations, but then «failed to carry out any adequate verification of the accuracy» of the legal materialaccording to English media reports such as The Guardian y The Independent.
The incident came to light during appeal process of two Honduran sistersaged 29 and 35, who were seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. The sisters claimed to be the target of a powerful criminal gang, the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), who wanted them as «their women» and had threatened to kill them and their families.
In November 2023, The English Home Office rejected his asylum applicationquestioning whether the women had been «really attacked by the gang.» The case was appealed to the High Court, where Rahman represented the sisters.
An immigration lawyer was accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, to prepare his legal investigation in an asylum case. Photo: AP/Michael Dwyer.Judge Blundell rejected Rahman’s arguments in dismissing his appeal. However, in an unusual move, the judge included a postscript in his ruling to point out the «significant problems» found in the grounds of appeal.
Of the twelve authorities cited by Rahman in the documentation, the judge observed that «some of those authorities did not exist» and others «did not support the propositions of law for which they were cited.»
«Mr. Rahman seemed to know nothing about any of the authorities he had cited in the grounds of appeal that he had supposedly resolved in July of this year. «Apparently you had not intended to lead me to any of those decisions in your submissions,» Judge Blundell said.
He added that some of the decisions cited by Rahman were fictitious, and yet did not support the proposition of law set out in the grounds. Furthermore, where cases did exist, they were «totally irrelevant» for the legal argument. Blundell concluded that Rahman’s presentations were «misleading».
Lawyer uses AI and cites fictitious cases in UK asylum appeal
Although Rahman claimed to have used «several websites» to conduct his research, Judge Blundell said the «most obvious explanation» is that the grounds for the appeal were drafted «in whole or in part by generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT.»
The judge felt «compelled to note that one of the cases cited in Mr. Rahman’s submissions was recently misimplemented by ChatGPT in support of similar arguments.»
When questioned about the inaccuracies, Rahman attributed the errors to his «writing style» and accepted that there may have been some «confusion and imprecision» in his arguments. He even suggested that he would need additional training in legal research and that he would try to write in a more «liberal» manner in the future.
The judge held that the grounds for the appeal were drafted «in whole or in part by generative artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT.» Photo: Reuters/Dado Ruvic.However, Judge Blundell rejected these explanationsarguing that the detailed problems «are not issues of writing style.» The judge expressed serious concern that Rahman «did not appear to understand the seriousness of the situation» nor that the investigation of such misleading submissions consumed a «significant amount of court time.»
«It is overwhelmingly likely, in my judgment, that Mr. Rahman used generative artificial intelligence to formulate the grounds of appeal in this case, and that tried to hide that fact from me during the hearing,» said Judge Blundell.
Due to the misleading statements and the resulting waste of the court’s time, Judge Blundell said he is considering referring Rahman’s conduct to the Bar Standards Boardthe disciplinary body that regulates defense solicitors in England and Wales.
