Sheriff warns against AI-generated arguments after fake cases cited

Sheriff Principal Nigel Ross made the remarks after dismissing an appeal by Susan Bakshi in a dispute with property management firm James Gibb Management Ltd.

Ms Bakshi had sought £4,995, arguing it was unfair that she was required to contribute to certain insurance costs for properties she did not own. Her claim was rejected and the management company was found not to have acted unlawfully.

In his judgment, Sheriff Ross said some of Ms Bakshi’s submissions were “incoherent” and “irrelevant”, while others were “misleading” and “poorly focused”.

He wrote: “It is a matter of regret that 11 pages of apparently software-generated but misleading, poorly focused, over-generalised and overstated argument has encouraged the appellant to believe (her claim was sound).”

The sheriff also noted that two authorities cited in the written submissions appeared not to exist.

He said: “There is a more serious point – two of the cases cited in submissions appear to be non-existent.”

Emphasising that parties remain responsible for material presented to the court, Sheriff Ross added: “Every litigant must take responsibility for their own submissions. They are not relieved of that responsibility by adopting material prepared by a third party, or a software programme.

“Attempting to influence a judicial decision by reference to false material, whether knowingly or carelessly presented, must raise fundamental questions of breach of duty to the court.”

Sheriff Ross refused the appeal and ordered Ms Bakshi to pay the expenses of the appeal hearing.