Pupil barrister relies on fictitious cases. Judge not delighted.
Reply 1
It’s worth noting that there’s a common theme with these sorts of cases (professional misconduct) where the original act may or may not be particularly serious, but it’s the doubling down that just makes things so much worse. It happened in the recent cases of the pupil copying work and the senior barristers creating a false fee note, and it happened here too. I’m not sure why you would use AI to create submissions at all, let alone not check the references in the cases if you do decide to, but this situation again becomes so much more serious when she doesn’t come clean about that. So many prospective and current barristers will read this case thinking that they won’t make mistakes, but I promise that you will, even if it’s a minor one. Whether minor or not, coming clean about it is embarrassing but so, so important.
Reply 2
19
I agree!
Reply 3
19
I add that, as may go without saying, citing a case that does not exist as an authority in support of an argument is at the serious end of misconduct, because it is an attempt to mislead the Court. The Judge has referred the barrister to the BSB. Her career at the Bar might be short. This is perhaps a pity, because she doesn't appear without talent, but she did a very dumb thing.
The BSB, like many professional regulators, is often quite flaky and useless. The profession to a large extent regulates itself by peer group pressure to behave ethically. Every good barrister dreads being thought of as untrustworthy by other barristers.
The BSB, like many professional regulators, is often quite flaky and useless. The profession to a large extent regulates itself by peer group pressure to behave ethically. Every good barrister dreads being thought of as untrustworthy by other barristers.
Reply 4
19
The Court has ordered Ms Forey and other lawyers involved in two cases of AI abuse to appear at a hearing to consider next steps including possible contempt of court sanctions.
Ms Forey is a second six month pupil. The question arises of what, if any, supervision was provided by her chambers.
I don't think that six months is long enough to train a barrister. Also, the professional ethics courses run by Bar course providers might not work well. Knowing how to behave and how not to behave is something traditionally instilled in a pupil barrister by his or her supervisors.
Alharoun -v- Qatar National Bank; and Ayinde -v- London Borough of Hackney (order) - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Ms Forey is a second six month pupil. The question arises of what, if any, supervision was provided by her chambers.
I don't think that six months is long enough to train a barrister. Also, the professional ethics courses run by Bar course providers might not work well. Knowing how to behave and how not to behave is something traditionally instilled in a pupil barrister by his or her supervisors.
Alharoun -v- Qatar National Bank; and Ayinde -v- London Borough of Hackney (order) - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
(edited 11 months ago)
Reply 5
Original post
by Stiffy ByngThe Court has ordered Ms Forey and other lawyers involved in two cases of AI abuse to appear at a hearing to consider next steps including possible contempt of court sanctions.
Ms Forey is a second six month pupil. The question arises of what, if any, supervision was provided by her chambers.
I don't think that six months is long enough to train a barrister. Also, the professional ethics courses run by Bar course providers might not work well. Knowing how to behave and how not to behave is something traditionally instilled in a pupil barrister by his or her supervisors.
Ms Forey is a second six month pupil. The question arises of what, if any, supervision was provided by her chambers.
I don't think that six months is long enough to train a barrister. Also, the professional ethics courses run by Bar course providers might not work well. Knowing how to behave and how not to behave is something traditionally instilled in a pupil barrister by his or her supervisors.
I find it very interesting that contempt of court is being mentioned. I instinctively didn't think this was that serious, but it's not something I'd really considered. I heard of another case last week in a court local to me where an advocate relied on a fictitious case. When it was pointed out to him, he was by all accounts extremely embarrassed and apologetic. Apparently that reference came from a Google search and not the use of AI, on his account anyway. I don't think it's likely that that will go further, but this has suddenly become a massive hot topic for lawyers and the judiciary and is putting a real spotlight on the use of AI in legal proceedings. As with (in my view) pretty much everything, AI is not the panacea that those with interests in the companies in this area would like us all to believe.
For what it's worth, I agree that six months is not long enough to train a barrister. I am very interested in the notion of apprenticeships, or other longer term approaches where a pupil barrister (or whatever they might be called) signs a longer fixed term contract with Chambers. Even within the current pupillage system, I think sets should be a lot more involved with pupils after first six than they are now. I don't think that doing six months of training (a lot of which is just following barristers around and watching them) and then letting pupils loose and assuming that they'll be fine was ever good enough, but I most certainly don't think it is in the modern legal world.
Reply 6
19
Original post
by Crazy JamieI find it very interesting that contempt of court is being mentioned. I instinctively didn't think this was that serious, but it's not something I'd really considered. I heard of another case last week in a court local to me where an advocate relied on a fictitious case. When it was pointed out to him, he was by all accounts extremely embarrassed and apologetic. Apparently that reference came from a Google search and not the use of AI, on his account anyway. I don't think it's likely that that will go further, but this has suddenly become a massive hot topic for lawyers and the judiciary and is putting a real spotlight on the use of AI in legal proceedings. As with (in my view) pretty much everything, AI is not the panacea that those with interests in the companies in this area would like us all to believe.
For what it's worth, I agree that six months is not long enough to train a barrister. I am very interested in the notion of apprenticeships, or other longer term approaches where a pupil barrister (or whatever they might be called) signs a longer fixed term contract with Chambers. Even within the current pupillage system, I think sets should be a lot more involved with pupils after first six than they are now. I don't think that doing six months of training (a lot of which is just following barristers around and watching them) and then letting pupils loose and assuming that they'll be fine was ever good enough, but I most certainly don't think it is in the modern legal world.
For what it's worth, I agree that six months is not long enough to train a barrister. I am very interested in the notion of apprenticeships, or other longer term approaches where a pupil barrister (or whatever they might be called) signs a longer fixed term contract with Chambers. Even within the current pupillage system, I think sets should be a lot more involved with pupils after first six than they are now. I don't think that doing six months of training (a lot of which is just following barristers around and watching them) and then letting pupils loose and assuming that they'll be fine was ever good enough, but I most certainly don't think it is in the modern legal world.
I think that Ms Forey's case is super serious. She set out to mislead the Court, and then lied about doing so. I think that merits a finding of contempt of court, and disbarment (the latter being of course a matter for the BSB, not the Court).
In my previous chambers, the training system was structured and rigorous, and no pupil took on their own work until after they were taken on as tenants in chambers (there were no "working pupils". The new tenants were mentored for a further six months. My current chambers does not have such a rigorous training system, but we do provide mentoring after the pupillage ends.
I had one two good pupilmasters (I will use the old terminology) and one bad one (a very famous barrister). I was well trained, but at that time not in a structured system. I later helped to design the modern training system still used at the chambers.
Reply 7
19
Original post
by Crazy JamieI find it very interesting that contempt of court is being mentioned. I instinctively didn't think this was that serious, but it's not something I'd really considered. I heard of another case last week in a court local to me where an advocate relied on a fictitious case. When it was pointed out to him, he was by all accounts extremely embarrassed and apologetic. Apparently that reference came from a Google search and not the use of AI, on his account anyway. I don't think it's likely that that will go further, but this has suddenly become a massive hot topic for lawyers and the judiciary and is putting a real spotlight on the use of AI in legal proceedings. As with (in my view) pretty much everything, AI is not the panacea that those with interests in the companies in this area would like us all to believe.
For what it's worth, I agree that six months is not long enough to train a barrister. I am very interested in the notion of apprenticeships, or other longer term approaches where a pupil barrister (or whatever they might be called) signs a longer fixed term contract with Chambers. Even within the current pupillage system, I think sets should be a lot more involved with pupils after first six than they are now. I don't think that doing six months of training (a lot of which is just following barristers around and watching them) and then letting pupils loose and assuming that they'll be fine was ever good enough, but I most certainly don't think it is in the modern legal world.
For what it's worth, I agree that six months is not long enough to train a barrister. I am very interested in the notion of apprenticeships, or other longer term approaches where a pupil barrister (or whatever they might be called) signs a longer fixed term contract with Chambers. Even within the current pupillage system, I think sets should be a lot more involved with pupils after first six than they are now. I don't think that doing six months of training (a lot of which is just following barristers around and watching them) and then letting pupils loose and assuming that they'll be fine was ever good enough, but I most certainly don't think it is in the modern legal world.
My post to which you replied has been deleted. The moderation on this forum is execrable. I don't think I CBA to post here any more.
Reply 8
Original post
by Stiffy ByngMy post to which you replied has been deleted. I don't think I CBA to post here any more.
I'm not sure what's happened there. I obviously saw your original post and responded to it, but we are encouraged as moderators not to delete posts. Even if there was an issue with something that you wrote in that post (not that I can see what that would have been), it shouldn't have been deleted. I can also normally see deleted posts as well, but that one has just disappeared. I struggle to explain it.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Good introductory books on LGBT Law for EPQ?
- LLB at University of Manchester vs Exeter
- barrister pay
- Applying for an Inn of Court Scholarship
- What do you do on a mini-pupillage?
- Barrister Shadowing
- My top tips for inn of court applications – learn the hard way!
- UCL or KCL law??
- how to find law related work experience??
- Employment Law at the Bar
- University’s for Law
- Durham Law
- How to Choose the Right Chambers and Project Manage Your Pupillage Applications
- Could Somebody Please Help Me Understand University Degrees?
- Title: Bar Student Diaries Part 2 – The Modules That Took Me by Surprise!
- What is a mini-pupillage like?
- Law oxford interviews
- Seeking Advice!
- Will not going to Oxbridge reduce my chances at gaining a pupillage?
- Oxford - BA Law - UCAS Personal Statement
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme (Oct 2026 Start!)Last reply 7 months ago
Help needed with best options for postgraduate law courses/Master'sLast reply 9 months ago
Advice on realistic chambers to target for pupillage
How The Student Room is moderated
To keep The Student Room safe for everyone, we moderate posts that are added to the site.
