Compiled by Citation Safe (Digital Empire Holdings LLC) from the court’s published sanction order (decided August 25, 2026). Quotes and case details come from the order itself — check the primary source before relying on them.

Sanction teardown · Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, UK · 2026-08-25

Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Abhishek Kumar

What happened

In Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, UK, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Misrepresented (Case Law)

The Respondent cited SRA v Chan as a 2020 Administrative Court authority, but the Tribunal found that the relevant SRA v Chan case was from 2015 and did not bear the cited reference.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The Respondent cited SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor using a citation that referred to an unrelated intellectual-property case. The Tribunal found that the citation was incorrect.
False Quotes (Case Law)

The Respondent later supplied a different citation for James, but the Applicant identified the correct citation as [2018] EWHC 3058; the Respondent also relied on a mental-health passage that could not be found in the judgment.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The Respondent relied on SRA v Day for the proposition that sanction must be assessed proportionately in light of personal circumstances and risk to the public. The Tribunal found that Day was an unsuccessful SRA appeal and that sanction was not in issue.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The Respondent asserted that Baxendale-Walker established that the SRA must act fairly. The Tribunal found that the decision contained only limited references to fairness and did not support the proposition advanced.
False Quotes (Case Law)

The Respondent placed the word “prosecutor” in quotation marks when describing Baxendale-Walker, but the Court of Appeal judgment did not contain that word.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Counsel struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3023/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).