AI may be new (ish), but accountability is not
The recent decision in Cork & Another v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch) has attracted attention in legal circles because it concerns the use of artificial intelligence by solicitors. However, the real significance of the judgment lies elsewhere.
At its heart, this is not a case about technology. It is a case about professional responsibility.
Judge Mullen’s decision is a reminder that solicitors remain accountable for the advice they give, the documents they prepare and the information they place before the court, regardless of the tools they use in the process.
What went wrong in this case?
Pinsent Masons had been instructed to prepare a block transfer application in an insolvency matter. The application came before Judge Mullen after concerns arose about statements made in correspondence sent by the firm.
When the court sought clarification, the firm relied on what appeared to be a provision of the Insolvency Rules said to confer a specific power on the court.
The difficulty was that the provision did not exist.
The court subsequently established that the reference had been generated by an AI tool and had not been properly verified before being included in correspondence.
The problem, however, was not simply that the information was wrong. The judgment demonstrates a broader failure to exercise independent judgment and carry out the checks that would ordinarily be expected of legal professionals.
Judge Mullen reviewed a lengthy exchange between a junior solicitor and the firm’s AI tool. He found that inaccurate and misleading information appeared at an early stage and that the solicitor had relied on the output despite indications that it might not be reliable.
His conclusion was that the solicitor had “almost entirely outsourced the thinking process” to the technology.
Responsibility cannot be delegated
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the judgment is the court’s focus on responsibility.
The judge’s criticism was directed not only at the junior solicitor who relied upon the AI-generated material, but also at those responsible for reviewing and supervising the work.
Although the court found no intention to mislead, it made clear that legal professionals cannot avoid responsibility by relying on technology, nor can supervisors assume that work generated with the assistance of AI requires less scrutiny.
The judgment reinforces a principle that has long existed within professional negligence law: responsibility rests with the solicitor, not with the tools they use.
Whether information comes from an AI platform, a textbook, a precedent, an online resource or a colleague, solicitors remain responsible for ensuring that it is accurate before relying on it.
Professional obligations remain unchanged
The decision sits consistently with the earlier case of R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey, which confirmed that AI-generated legal research must be checked against authoritative sources before it is used.
The courts have therefore been clear that AI does not create a different standard of care.
Solicitors continue to owe their clients a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. They must undertake appropriate research, verify the accuracy of information and exercise independent professional judgment.
The use of AI does not dilute those obligations.
What Cork demonstrates is that existing professional duties apply just as readily where legal work is produced with the assistance of technology as they do in more traditional circumstances.
What does this mean for clients?
For clients, the message from Cork is a reassuring one.
As AI becomes increasingly common within the legal profession, clients are entitled to expect that the quality of legal services will remain the same. Solicitors cannot defend mistakes by pointing to shortcomings in an AI system or by suggesting that an error originated from technology rather than from an individual lawyer.
Clients are also entitled to expect proper supervision within a law firm. Work undertaken by junior lawyers should be appropriately reviewed, and systems should be in place to ensure that inaccurate information is identified before it reaches the client or the court.
Where legal services fall below the standard reasonably expected of a competent solicitor and loss results, the fact that AI formed part of the process does not alter the solicitor’s underlying responsibility.
The message from the regulator is the same
The emphasis on accountability in Cork reflects a broader concern within the profession about the use of AI.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority recently issued a sector-wide warning reminding firms that the use of AI does not alter the professional standards expected of solicitors and law firms.
The regulator confirmed that it is investigating a number of matters involving the alleged misuse of AI, including concerns about inaccurate legal citations, supervision and the handling of confidential information.
While recognising the benefits AI can bring to legal practice, the SRA emphasised the need for appropriate human oversight and effective governance. Its message was clear: individuals remain responsible for the work they produce and the advice they provide, regardless of whether AI has been used in the process.
That mirrors the reasoning in Cork. The issue was not simply that the technology produced an incorrect answer. The court’s concern was that inaccurate information was relied upon without adequate verification and that the safeguards expected within a professional practice failed to identify the problem before it reached the court.
What does the future hold?
The use of AI within legal practice will continue to grow. Used appropriately, it has the potential to improve efficiency and assist lawyers in managing large volumes of information.
However, both Cork and the SRA’s recent warning serve as reminders that technology does not replace professional judgment.
The most significant lesson is not that AI can make mistakes. That is already well understood, but rather it is that solicitors remain responsible for identifying those mistakes before they affect their clients’ interests.
For clients, that should be reassuring. The courts and the regulator have made clear that the standards expected of solicitors remain unchanged. The technology may be new, but the principle is not: lawyers remain accountable for the work they produce, the advice they give and the service they provide.
This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to address the circumstances of any individual or entity, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for specific advice from a qualified solicitor. The information reflects the legal position as at the date specified and may be subject to change. If you require advice on a specific matter, please contact us directly.