An immigration lawyer referred to a tribunal following a criminal conviction has been struck off after using AI-generated evidence as part of his own defence.

Abhishek Kumar, 41, a registered foreign lawyer, was referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) — the independent tribunal that hears cases brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against solicitors and registered lawyers in England and Wales — following his 2024 conviction at the Central Criminal Court. He had knowingly employed a vulnerable adult who was disqualified from working because of his immigration status, paying him "cash in hand". Kumar was sentenced to a 12-month community order and 150 hours of unpaid work.

Representing himself at the Tribunal in the regulatory fallout from that conviction, Kumar submitted a written answer drafted with AI that contained misleading quotations and non-existent cases. After the SRA, the legal regulator, identified the false citations, Kumar emailed the tribunal to explain and apologise — but that email was also drafted with AI and contained further false material.

Kumar accepted that his actions breached one of the SRA's principles and that he had failed to uphold the administration of justice. He said he deeply regretted that his "technological negligence created a risk of bringing the profession into disrepute", but denied that his conduct breached public trust and confidence in the profession. He said he had no intention to mislead and simply lacked the expertise to verify the AI output.

The Tribunal dismissed his excuses, ruling that the harm caused by his misconduct was high both for the immigration violation and the AI misuse. The SDT made clear that Kumar would have been struck off for either the immigration offence or the AI misconduct independently. He was ordered to be struck off the register, meaning he can no longer practise law.

Professional services problem with AI

The case marks the first time the Tribunal has dealt with the issue of AI hallucinations — the tendency of generative AI tools to produce plausible-sounding but fabricated content, including case citations and quotations that do not exist.

In May, London-headquartered law firm Pinsent Masons was criticised by a High Court judge after a lawyer sent the court AI-generated letters containing false legal information. The firm said it referred the matter to the SRA, which is investigating further.

In August, the legal watchdog issued a formal warning about AI after receiving 42 reports of AI misuse and fake court citations, as "AI hallucination" continues to plague the legal and professional services industry. The episode adds to a growing pattern of cases in England and Wales and beyond in which courts and regulators have sanctioned or criticised lawyers for submitting unverified AI-generated material, and it signals that tribunals are prepared to treat failure to verify AI output as serious professional misconduct in its own right.