Barristers and AI – the Devil is in the Detail | Behind the Wig

Sebastian Hughes
Barrister


Much has been written about lawyers falling foul of AI generated “hallucinations” – two seasoned New York litigators and their firm fined by a judge in 2023 for citing non-existent case law; the criminal silk in Melbourne who submitted fake quotes from state parliament and fabricated case citations to a judge in a murder trial in 2025; and, most recently this year, a decision handed down by the Supreme Court in India censuring a first instance judge for citing four fabricated precedents in a property dispute.  

The excuse put forward by the New York law firm in 2023 – that it made a “good faith mistake” in failing to understand that ChatGPT might make up non-existent case law – is even less likely to pass muster today. 

There is no doubt that AI is already transforming legal practice. Several years ago, I recall a litigation solicitor marvelling at the speed with which AI could write letters of demand, in just minutes, that would usually take at least an hour to draft. Barristers involved in complex litigation and arbitration matters have quickly progressed from simply using AI as a useful tool to assist with case theory and to predict likely outcomes, to using AI on a daily basis for legal research, analysis and document drafting.

Exponential improvements in AI mean that the latest models can be easily trained to write submissions in the same style as the human “author”.

So where does this leave barristers thinking to embrace the inevitable and start using AI?

A colleague in chambers describes AI as “the best pupil you ever imagined, but one that still makes mistakes”. 

Notwithstanding the astonishing advances that have been made with AI, the problem of hallucinations will not go away. This was the result generated (in seconds) from a search using Google AI: “While AI tools improve, they remain prone to generating fabricated precedents and false legal information, making rigorous, independent verification by lawyers absolutely essential”. My colleague has the same sage (and perhaps obvious) words of advice – a barrister should never rely upon a case he has not read.

Judges and bar associations in jurisdictions worldwide make the same point in recent judgments and practice guidelines – noting also that reliance on fake case law may amount to contempt of court or even perverting the course of justice.

Some have predicted difficulties lie ahead for pupil barristers and trainee solicitors seeking to enter the legal profession in light of the challenge of AI. Tech savvy senior barristers may feel more inclined to use AI tools instead of devilling work to juniors. Yet there is room for optimism. As with any technology, it is likely that those who are able to embrace AI in their legal practice will reap benefits in terms of efficiency and indeed quality of work. Barristers – who typically charge on a fixed “brief fee” basis - are also less likely to face the same ethical issues surrounding fees as solicitors, who usually charge their clients on a time basis. 

It took some time for the legal profession to embrace digitisation, but e-hearings are now standard practice in international arbitration, and increasingly prevalent in the courts. Judges typically require soft copies of submissions and hearing bundles, and many barristers have eschewed voluminous hard copy document bundles in court in favour of iPads and tablets.

Use of AI will have an even more dramatic effect on legal practice than e-hearings and documents – to the benefit of judges, arbitrators, barristers and indeed lay clients alike.

Mr. Sebastian Hughes is a Council Member of the Hong Kong Bar Association and a Member of its Intellectual Property Committee. He practises as a barrister and arbitrator. His practice focuses on intellectual property, commercial, cryptocurrency, white collar fraud, insolvency, company, insurance, employment, matrimonial finance, and costs/taxation matters.

Sebastian Hughes
Barrister

Photo: Hong Kong Bar Association

Behind the Wig is a weekly legal column written by practicing barristers specialising in criminal, civil, and commercial law.  Drawing on their legal expertise and practical experience, or sharing their observations and insights as barristers, they analyse social issues, encourage readers to interpret everyday matters through a legal mindset, and promote the spirit of the rule of law.　

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect TVB’s editorial stance.