*/
We have all heard the stories about AI-hallucinated cases finding their way into skeleton arguments and written submissions, but until relatively recently spotting one in the wild was a rarer occurrence.
Mangled case citations have been a feature of legal research enquiries for as long as there have been cases to cite. The seasoned law librarian can untangle jumbled years and volume numbers, decode anagrammed abbreviations, spell-check mistyped or misheard party names and, more often than not, locate your desired case.
Hallucinated citations, on the other hand, present an entirely different challenge. At first glance they seem legitimate but, despite meticulous efforts to track them down, they remain frustratingly elusive.
Take, for example, a recent encounter we had with a dubious citation during the course of an enquiry. After exhausting all available tools to decode and locate the case, our suspicion grew: could this be a rogue hallucination? The deeper we dug, the clearer it became that no such case existed, at which stage we turned to the likely source, Generative AI.
For a law librarian, encountering a hallucinated citation is a real Scooby Do reveal moment, so we excitedly entered prompts into various Generative AI applications – both free and paid – asking them to summarise our hallucinated case. The results were intriguing:
These examples are given not to suggest that any particular Generative AI tool should be preferred. Rather, they highlight that interrogation is key.
While the library remains the perfect starting point for legal research, with up-to-date practitioner texts and dedicated legal databases, in reality not everyone will have immediate access to such a resource and will instead begin their journey with readily available (and often free) Generative AI applications. These tools are adept at producing convincing imitations of case references and summaries, presented to the querent with an unruffled confidence that can mislead.
Keep your research on the right track with these simple steps:
Sally McLaren is a law librarian at the Inner Temple Library, with 20+ years of experience. She is enthusiastic about improving access to legal information.
Lily Rowe is a law librarian at the Inner Temple Library. She is interested in making access to legal information more effective and exciting for all.
We have all heard the stories about AI-hallucinated cases finding their way into skeleton arguments and written submissions, but until relatively recently spotting one in the wild was a rarer occurrence.
Mangled case citations have been a feature of legal research enquiries for as long as there have been cases to cite. The seasoned law librarian can untangle jumbled years and volume numbers, decode anagrammed abbreviations, spell-check mistyped or misheard party names and, more often than not, locate your desired case.
Hallucinated citations, on the other hand, present an entirely different challenge. At first glance they seem legitimate but, despite meticulous efforts to track them down, they remain frustratingly elusive.
Take, for example, a recent encounter we had with a dubious citation during the course of an enquiry. After exhausting all available tools to decode and locate the case, our suspicion grew: could this be a rogue hallucination? The deeper we dug, the clearer it became that no such case existed, at which stage we turned to the likely source, Generative AI.
For a law librarian, encountering a hallucinated citation is a real Scooby Do reveal moment, so we excitedly entered prompts into various Generative AI applications – both free and paid – asking them to summarise our hallucinated case. The results were intriguing:
These examples are given not to suggest that any particular Generative AI tool should be preferred. Rather, they highlight that interrogation is key.
While the library remains the perfect starting point for legal research, with up-to-date practitioner texts and dedicated legal databases, in reality not everyone will have immediate access to such a resource and will instead begin their journey with readily available (and often free) Generative AI applications. These tools are adept at producing convincing imitations of case references and summaries, presented to the querent with an unruffled confidence that can mislead.
Keep your research on the right track with these simple steps:
Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar, sets our course for 2026
What meaningful steps can you take in 2026 to advance your legal career? asks Thomas Cowan of St Pauls Chambers
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, explains why drugs may appear in test results, despite the donor denying use of them
Asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
AlphaBiolabs has donated £500 to The Christie Charity through its Giving Back initiative, helping to support cancer care, treatment and research across Greater Manchester, Cheshire and further afield
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Jury-less trial proposals threaten fairness, legitimacy and democracy without ending the backlog, writes Professor Cheryl Thomas KC (Hon), the UK’s leading expert on juries, judges and courts
Human rights cases don’t come bigger than this. Tim Otty KC, lead counsel for the Government of Ukraine in its case before the European Court against Russia, talks about the significance of this landmark ruling and other pro bono highlights from his career at the Bar. Interview by Anthony Inglese CB
Are you ready for the new way to do tax returns? David Southern KC explains the biggest change since HMRC launched self-assessment more than 30 years ago... and its impact on the Bar
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC present their best buys for this holiday season
Marking one year since a Bar disciplinary tribunal dismissed all charges against her, Dr Charlotte Proudman discusses the experience, her formative years and next steps. Interview by Anthony Inglese CB
