Judge Criticizes Lawyer for AI Use After Citing Fake Cases in Asylum Appeal

An immigration barrister faces a potential disciplinary investigation after a judge criticized his use of artificial intelligence tools in legal research. During a recent tribunal, the judge, Mark Blundell, noted significant issues with the submissions made by Chowdhury Rahman.

Case Background

Rahman was representing two Honduran sisters who sought asylum in the UK, claiming they were victims of threats from the violent gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). The sisters arrived at Heathrow airport in June 2022 and stated during their initial screenings that gang members had threatened their families.

Home Office Decision

• In November 2023, the Home Office denied their asylum claim.
• The ruling cited the sisters’ accounts as “inconsistent and unsupported by documentary evidence.”

Appeal Process

The sisters appealed the Home Office’s decision to the first-tier tribunal. However, their application was dismissed, with the judge expressing skepticism about their credibility. The case was subsequently escalated to the Upper Tribunal, with Rahman continuing to represent them.

Judge’s Findings

During the appeal hearing, Rahman argued that the initial judge failed to thoroughly evaluate the evidence and credibility of the claimants. However, Judge Blundell found no legal errors in the previous ruling.

In a notable postscript, Judge Blundell addressed serious concerns regarding Rahman’s legal research practices. Of the 12 legal authorities he cited, the judge found that several were non-existent, and others did not support his arguments effectively.

AI Use and Misleading Submissions

• Rahman’s research relied on dubious sources.
• One cited case had previously been misrepresented by AI, specifically ChatGPT.

Judge Blundell commented that Rahman appeared unfamiliar with essential legal research tools and methods. He noted that the barrister’s submissions lacked credibility, stating it was likely that Rahman used generative artificial intelligence for his appeal documents. The judge suggested a potential attempt to conceal this use from the tribunal.

Next Steps

Given the severity of the findings, Judge Blundell is considering referring Rahman to the Bar Standards Board for further investigation. This incident raises critical questions about the reliability of AI in legal contexts and the accountability of legal professionals in their research methodologies.