A foreign lawyer who used AI-generated legal citations to defend himself against disciplinary charges has now been removed from the professional register after a tribunal ruled his reliance on the technology was careless and unsuitable for a regulated practitioner.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found against Abhishek Kumar, a 41-year-old registered foreign lawyer, after concluding his repeated use of generative AI to prepare legal submissions led to false and inaccurate case references. The panel called his failure to check the AI output a serious violation of professional conduct with “very high” fault.
Kumar’s disciplinary hearing stemmed from his 2024 criminal conviction for knowingly employing an undocumented worker. The individual had previously been his immigration client and later performed administrative tasks while being paid in cash—despite lacking legal authorization to work in the UK. As part of his sentence, Kumar received a 12-month community order and 150 hours of unpaid work.
When the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) launched disciplinary proceedings, Kumar submitted a written defense containing flawed legal citations. Some references were incorrect or pulled from unrelated cases, while others failed to support his arguments. He acknowledged using AI to help draft the document but claimed the mistakes came from inexperience rather than deliberate dishonesty.
After the SRA identified the errors, Kumar tried to correct his position by using AI again to prepare an explanation, only for the second submission to contain additional inaccuracies. The tribunal dismissed his defense, stressing that a regulated lawyer remains fully accountable for the accuracy of their work, no matter what tools they employ.
The SDT noted that Kumar’s dependence on AI lacked proper supervision. It observed he had not considered the risks of using unverified AI-generated content in a professional context or taken sufficient steps to confirm its accuracy. The panel also pointed out that his second use of AI, after the first set of errors was exposed, showed a continued inability to meet basic professional standards.
Kumar argued he was used to working under supervision and lacked the skills to evaluate AI outputs alone. The tribunal rejected this, stating it did not remove his responsibility. The tribunal said the repeated failure to verify submissions had serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the legal profession.
The ruling stated Kumar would have faced disbarment for either his criminal conviction or the AI-related misconduct alone. His repeated submission of unverified AI materials, the tribunal found, was incompatible with the duties of a regulated lawyer.
As a result, Kumar was erased from the register of foreign lawyers, ending his practice in the UK.
