AI, Integrity, and the SDT: The Kumar decision and a further SRA warning

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s (SDT) decision in SRA v Kumar, a case that has caught the attention of many in the legal profession, and for good reason, has landed almost simultaneous with the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) latest Warning Notice on the Misuse of AI.

The case facts

Mr Kumar, a Registered Foreign Lawyer, was prosecuted by the SRA following a criminal conviction. He later faced added allegations arising from his use (or misuse) of generative AI when responding formally to the allegations and to the SRA. His submissions included misleading quotations and inaccuracies, errors said to have been generated by AI and repeated even after they were pointed out by the SRA.

The SDT found Mr Kumar in breach of SRA Principles and the Code of Conduct, including a lack of integrity. This is the first time the SDT has dealt directly with the use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings.

While dishonesty was not alleged, Mr Kumar’s repeated reliance on inaccurate AI-generated content, and his failure to demonstrate insight or take responsibility, significantly increased his culpability in the eyes of the Tribunal. Ultimately, he was struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers, with repeated disregard for accuracy and integrity likely playing a crucial role in the outcome.

For lawyers and legal professionals, this is a cautionary tale. With the growing use of AI in legal research and drafting, the duty to verify the accuracy of AI-assisted work is paramount. As the SRA’s new guidance on AI reiterates: solicitors and regulated individuals remain responsible for their outputs, regardless of the tools used. Supervision and governance are also under the spotlight. Those overseeing junior or non-authorised staff may also face repercussions if inaccurate or fabricated content is submitted without adequate oversight.

This decision and the new SRA guidance land at a pivotal moment. They highlight the risks of AI “hallucinations”, concerns around confidentiality, and, perhaps most importantly, the professional duty of accuracy and accountability in an era of rapidly evolving technology.

The question remains whether Mr Kumar would have faced the same sanction in the absence of his criminal conviction, particularly where he was not alleged to have acted dishonestly.

The doubling down of Mr Kumar and further generation of inaccurate information undoubtedly is a cautionary tale for lawyers.

Takeaways

As so often in professional regulation, prompt insight, genuine reflection and insight are key, as is accepting responsibility. In this case, the repetition despite the issue having been pointed out was seen by the SDT as increasing Mr Kumar’s culpability. Repeated disregard for accuracy in communications with the SRA and SDT no doubt impacted upon the decision to strike Mr Kumar from the Register of Foreign Lawyers, despite it being unclear whether they would have imposed the same sanction for his conviction given his noted lack of insight on that side of the case.

It is an interesting case, and clearly one where the SRA was keen to ensure that Mr Kumar was called to account for his inaccurate and misleading drafting.

If you have questions or concerns about SRA investigations, please contact Professional Discipline solicitor Hannah Pilkington.