Module 1 of 2 · 45 minutes
The SRA's warning notice, and the citation that does not exist
By the end of this module you will be able to
- State what the SRA's warning notice says and its date
- Explain why reliance on AI is not a defence
- Describe what the court said in Ayinde
- Verify an authority before it goes into a document
- Explain the supervisor's exposure
Work through it
1 interactive for this module, built on the WAJD Teach engine. Nothing moves until you ask it to, and every one has a written version if you would rather read it.
Watch: Emma and George talk it through
3 minutes. Captions are on, and the same conversation is written out in full below. The voices are computer generated.
Emma George, the SRA's put something out on AI and everyone in my firm has a different version of what it says. What does it say?
George It's a warning notice, called Misuse of AI, published on 17 August 2026. It isn't new law. It tells you how the regulator reads the existing Principles and Codes. And it says failing to have proper regard to it puts you at risk of disciplinary action.
Emma Has it banned AI?
George No. It's about misuse. The core line is that you remain accountable for all work and advice delivered to clients, whether or not AI has been used in its preparation.
Emma And if the tool makes something up?
George The notice says reliance on an output of AI would not be a suitable defence. That's the sentence to remember.
Emma What prompted it?
George Cases. In Ayinde against Haringey, decided by the Divisional Court in June 2025, submissions contained case citations that were false. The court said lawyers remain personally responsible for the accuracy of what they put before a court, whatever tools were used.
Emma And what did it do about it?
George It said that where false citations are placed before the court, a reference to the regulator is likely to be appropriate. And the notice lists later decisions in the same vein during 2026, in the Upper Tribunal, the Family Court and the High Court.
Emma Is there a pattern?
George A consistent one. The court doesn't accept that the tool was at fault. It treats minimising the problem as making it worse. And it refers.
Emma Why do these tools invent cases at all?
George They produce the most plausible text. Ask for an authority and you can get a believable name, court, year and citation, with a summary that supports you perfectly. None of it real.
Emma I could ask it to confirm.
George Which proves nothing. And there's a subtler failure. It can cite a real case for a proposition the case doesn't support.
Emma So what's the standard?
George The notice sets it. All named authorities must be genuine, relevant, have a verifiable citation, and advance the argument. Four checks, and each needs the judgment itself.
Emma Give me the rule in one line.
George Never cite a case you haven't opened. If you can't find the judgment on a recognised source, it doesn't go in.
Emma I supervise two trainees. Am I exposed?
George Yes. The notice says those who supervise junior or non-authorised colleagues may also be found in breach if false citations reach the court without adequate review or supervision.
Emma What do I change?
George Know whether AI was used in a draft. Check the authorities, not only the argument. And make it easy for a trainee to say I used a tool for this. One who's afraid to say so is your largest risk.
The written material
The warning notice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority published a warning notice, Misuse of AI, on 17 August 2026. A warning notice is not new law. It tells the profession how the regulator reads the existing Principles and Codes in a particular situation, and it says in terms that failing to have proper regard to it puts you at risk of disciplinary action.
It is short and direct. You remain accountable for all work and advice delivered to clients, whether or not AI has been used in its preparation. AI tools can produce hallucinations, generating fictitious cases, references or seemingly factual assertions. And reliance on an output of AI would not be a suitable defence.
The cases behind it
In R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey, decided by the Divisional Court in June 2025, submissions contained case citations that were false. The court said that existing guidance was not enough on its own, that lawyers remain personally responsible for the accuracy of what they put before a court whatever tools were used, and that where false citations are placed before the court a reference to the regulator is likely to be appropriate.
The notice lists later decisions in the same vein, in the Upper Tribunal, the Family Court and the High Court during 2026. The pattern is consistent. The court does not accept that the tool was at fault, it treats minimising the problem as an aggravating feature, and it refers.
Why it invents, and what to check
A generative tool produces the most plausible text. Asked for an authority, it can produce a case with a believable name, court, year and citation, and a summary that supports your argument perfectly, none of which exists. It can also cite a real case for a proposition it does not support, which is harder to spot. Asking the tool whether its own citation is genuine proves nothing.
The notice sets the standard: you should be assured that all submissions of named case law authorities are genuine, relevant, have a verifiable citation, and advance the arguments being put forward. That is four checks, and each needs the judgment itself.
- Genuine: found on an official or established source, not the tool
- Verifiable citation: the neutral citation leads to that judgment
- Relevant: read the passage relied on, in the judgment
- Advances the argument: it says what you say it says
Supervisors
The notice is explicit that responsibility does not stop with the person who typed the prompt. Those who supervise junior or non-authorised colleagues may also be found to have breached regulatory requirements and professional duties if false citations are put before the court without adequate review or supervision.
So a supervisor needs to know whether AI was used in a draft, to check authorities and not only the argument, and to make it easy for a junior to say 'I used a tool for this'. A trainee who is afraid to say so is the firm's largest risk.
Knowledge check
The knowledge check and your certificate need a free account, so that your progress and results can be saved as evidence.
The learning itself stays free and open. You are reading all of it right now without an account.
Was this module useful? Tell us in two minutes, it decides what we improve next.