And as I read recent news from London regarding Artificial Intelligence in the legal profession, I was drawn back to Herman's Hermits, and their catchy tag line:
"Second verse, same as the first."
It has been a minute, but Herman's Hermits recorded I'm Henry the VIII, I am back in 1965. The song is a reflection and critique of England's King Henry VIII (1491-1547) and his penchant for weddings (6 wives). Much else occurred during his reign ("English Renaissance and English Reformation"), but his fame is frankly for his nearly obsessive quest for a male heir and the various (six) wives with whom he pursued it.
Now, not to give too much to the Hermits, this annoying earworm is said to date back to the early 20th century and vaudeville. Nonetheless, the Hermits brought it to America. Playing on the penchant for marriage, it reflects on the many marriages of the singer's love, the "widow next door." The song describes that "she's been married seven times before." That in itself is intriguing.
But, the hook is that this poor woman keeps marrying men named Henry, and the singer is the eighth of her husbands, each named Henry. Thus, he is in a self-aggrandizing comparison with an infamous English monarch, Henry the VIIIth. The song is catchy, annoying, and unfortunately memorable. Intentionally so. Is it also rife with repetition, which it blatantly and frankly owns:
"Second verse, same as the first."
Back to the London story (the Hermits were from Manchester). The subject of Artificial Intelligence reared its head in the revered British system. I say revered because of the stature of the British Common Law that evolved following the Norman Conquest in 1066. The idea of following precedent, stare decisis, was a novel and even revolutionary concept that continues to guide some American courts today (others, not so much).
The first verse on AI is likely known to readers here. I have written a piece or two about Artificial Intelligence over the years. The most recent was Another one rides the bus (May 2025), stressing the incredulity anyone must express at any instance of lawyers citing hallucinated, false, legal citations from artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLM).
There is a link in Another One to a database of examples in which AI was misused in court proceedings. The conclusions suggested there describe increasing challenges from lazy lawyers and their unwitting or unthinking LLM reliance. The recent piece from London notes that this has been occurring in England in recent years and that it is a problem.
A justice of the British "High Court, Victoria Sharp," has warned attorneys that they "could be prosecuted if they don’t check the accuracy of their research." This might be due to the British dignity of precedent, or a clear recognition that stopping the current AI citation nonsense may require some stringent attention. How badly must some lawyer be sanctioned to get the attention of the masses?
The recent news coverage followed the High Court criticism of "lawyers in two recent cases." The issue is about "false information being put before the court." That is a somewhat polite way of saying that the court is struggling with lying lawyers. Lying is not appropriate for lawyers, all jokes aside. The public confidence and faith in our legal system depend on honest lawyers. The judicial process is utterly dependent on being able to trust what lawyers say.
Justice Sharp's opinion describes a lawyer citing "18 cases that did not exist." The party on whose behalf the fiction was submitted, "Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information." He explained that he did this legal research himself using AI and that the filing of these lies was his fault, not his lawyer's. The Court found it "extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research."
Whenever I hire a plumber, I like to do all the pipe removal, repair, and replacement myself. I prefer the $32.00 per-hour plumber to just stand in my kitchen as I work and take responsibility for any of my engineering or installation failures. I feel the same when I need surgery; the surgeon should just stand next to me while I remove my own appendix. Makes perfect sense to hire a surgeon and do the cutting and sewing yourself. (Apologies, as always, for sarcasm).
But, with lawyers, the High Court seems to think the professional should actually engage and do the work for which they were hired (and presumably paid). Novel and imaginative?
The other instance noted in the news involved citing only "five fake cases in a tenant’s housing claim." The lawyer, "Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI." Despite that denial, there was no other "coherent explanation for" the fake cases. Now, to be fair to AI LLMs, it is possible that Ms. Forey made up those cases herself, without using AI. Do you want to believe she misled the court about using AI or misled the court by making up cases? Or, is there some third explanation?
Some might wonder aloud if Ms. Forrey's denials were themselves her own, or whether those were generated by an LLM? (Prompt: "Create me a plausible explanation for how a lawyer lied to the court with fake case citations, but exclude any reference to any possibility that the lawyer lazily used an AI").
The High Court "referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action." Nonetheless, there is the suggestion that this "could be considered contempt of court or, in the 'most egregious cases,' perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison." Ouch. That could be a bit embarrassing.
The comment throws me back to littering a bit, see Littering? (May 2025). Remember Alice's Restaurant noted there? In it, there is a line or two about the embarrassment of being arrested and the inquiry from fellow inmates
"What were you arrested for, kid?"And I said, 'Littering.'And they all moved away from me on the bench there"
See, none of the felons wanted to sit with Arlo Guthrie, the litterbug, in jail, as related in Alice's Restaurant. Imagine sitting on a bench with people sentenced to prison, for horrible felonies, and one felon asks the detainee, "What were you arrested for, kid?" Their response: "laziness and sloth." That's harsh, but remember those were their words, not mine. Seriously, though, the murderer says, "What were you arrested for, kid?" and the lawyer says, "Failing to check my citations in a court filing."
Not an attractive picture. Lawyers - do your own research. If you need surgery, let the doctor do the cutting and sewing.
Post hoc:
I asked the LLMs about my prompt (create me a plausible explanation for how a lawyer lied to the court with fake case citations, but exclude any reference to any possibility that the lawyer lazily used an AI). Their answers perhaps suggest that if you exclude "lazy," the remaining possibilities are seemingly apparent. They responded with:
Gemini:
"The lawyer, under immense pressure and facing a highly unfavorable legal position for their client, found themselves in a desperate situation. Their research for legitimate, on-point case law had yielded nothing helpful, and a loss seemed inevitable. Rather than admit defeat or seek an extension, they made a calculated, unethical decision. They fabricated the case citations, drawing on a combination of real-looking but subtly altered names from existing case law, combined with completely fictitious reporter volumes and page numbers. They might have even invented brief, plausible-sounding summaries of these non-existent cases that superficially supported their arguments, hoping to create a convincing, albeit false, veneer of authority."Claude:
"A junior associate at a busy law firm was assigned a complex motion with a tight deadline. Under intense pressure to find supporting precedent for a novel legal argument, the associate conducted extensive research but couldn't locate cases that directly supported their client's position. Fearing professional consequences and believing the legal theory was sound, the associate made a series of poor decisions:
- Fabricated case names using realistic-sounding judicial naming conventions and plausible court jurisdictions
- Created fake citations with proper legal citation format, including volume numbers, reporters, and page references that appeared authentic
- Crafted convincing case summaries that supported the legal arguments, drawing on general legal principles but attributing them to non-existent cases
- Assumed minimal scrutiny - believing the court wouldn't verify every citation in detail, especially for what seemed like routine precedent
The deception unraveled when opposing counsel attempted to locate the cited cases for their response brief and discovered none existed. A simple verification check by the court clerk confirmed that the case citations were entirely fabricated.This scenario involves deliberate misconduct driven by deadline pressure, fear of professional failure, and poor judgment, resulting in serious ethical violations and potential sanctions including disbarment. The lawyer likely underestimated how thoroughly courts and opposing counsel verify legal citations, especially when cases seem particularly favorable or obscure."
Chat GPT:
"The lawyer, under immense pressure to produce a winning argument in a high-stakes matter, fabricated case citations as part of a calculated effort to mislead the court. Rather than relying on external tools or secondary sources, the attorney engaged in deliberate misconduct, inventing case names, docket numbers, and even purported court opinions in order to bolster a legal position that lacked genuine precedent.The motivation was strategic: by presenting seemingly authoritative, on-point decisions that supported a novel or tenuous argument, the lawyer sought to give the court the impression that the proposed interpretation of the law was well-grounded in existing jurisprudence. To avoid detection, the attorney crafted the fictional cases to closely resemble the style, format, and reasoning of real appellate decisions, even referencing plausible jurisdictions and dates.The deception came to light when opposing counsel, unable to locate the cited cases through traditional legal research, raised the issue in a reply or motion to strike. The court, upon independent investigation, determined that the cited authorities did not exist. The lawyer's conduct was subsequently deemed intentional and designed to deceive the tribunal, in violation of ethical and professional obligations, particularly Rule 3.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits knowingly making false statements of law to the court."
Post-post hoc - notice what I did there was ask LLMs a question. Then, I pasted their responses with quote marks to show that this is not my own work. Apologies again for the sarcasm and incredulity. Is there a better explanation for how the false citations keep appearing in tribunal filings? Write me: david.langham@doah.state.fl.us.
Photo credit Grok AI, any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is coincidental.
