A Scottish judge has cautioned users of AI that they may face contempt of court proceedings, following an incident in which AI technology generated fictitious legislation and invented legal references during a case brought before him. Sheriff John MacRitchie presided over a dispute at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court, in which landlords sought to recover £5,000 in rent arrears from two former tenants. The claimants, Your Home Partners, asserted reliance “<span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Interest on Debts (Scotland) Act 1985”, a statute that does not, in fact, exist.
Whilst the judge described the claimants' conduct as reckless, he stopped short of finding them in contempt of court. In his written judgment, he stated: "[t]he lodging of false legal references has the potential to obstruct justice." The judge chose not to hold the company in contempt on the basis that they had not "knowingly" sought to "interfere with the administration of justice" by wasting the court's time. Under Scots law, contempt of court carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine.
The company had further informed the court that it was relying upon decisions reached by tribunals in comparable cases. Court officials at Kirkcaldy had repeatedly advised Your Home Partners that a sheriff court was not the appropriate venue for the matter and that it ought instead to be referred to a tribunal. Nevertheless, the firm — which had chosen to proceed without legal representation — maintained that it was "relying on legal authority," a position that led Sheriff MacRitchie to permit the arguments to be heard before him.
The judge noted that he had been entirely unable to locate either the legislation or the case references cited by Your Home Partners in support of their legal arguments. Court staff subsequently contacted the relevant tribunals and were informed that the cases in question did not exist. The company eventually conceded that both the cases and the legislation were fictitious and acknowledged that it had employed AI in preparing its submission.
Sheriff MacRitchie drew reference to an English case involving Haringey Law Centre and Haringey Council, in which legal proceedings were brought against a solicitor who relied upon fabricated law as part of a defence. In what is believed to be the first instance of this matter arising in Scots law, the sheriff warned that the use of AI held the potential to place an unnecessary burden upon already stretched court resources.
He wrote: "There was a degree of recklessness in the claimant delaying verifying that the references produced by artificial intelligence were genuine, until only after the relative submissions were lodged. There is a fine line in this instance between whether the claimant and its individual partners, even as lay persons, have shown contempt for the court by not reasonably checking that such references were genuine before using them in this manner, or otherwise."
The sheriff dismissed the claim to recover the alleged rent arrears, reiterating that the appropriate avenue for pursuing such an action is a specialist tribunal. He concluded: "What this claim does highlight is the dangers of a reckless reliance on artificial intelligence by any party without verifying that the same is genuine, and the potential for a party being found in contempt of court in circumstances such as these, even if done in good faith."
