Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (England & Wales); prosecuting regulator: Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Abhishek Kumar, SDT case 12884/2026
Sanctioned · 25 August 2026
What was fabricated
Non-existent case citations and incorrect legal propositions, together with misleading quotations, in the respondent's Answer to the Tribunal — and then FURTHER false material in the email sent to explain the first set. Two of the cases cited were relied on for propositions the authorities did not support, so real authorities were misrepresented alongside invented ones. SCOPE POINT: the Tribunal found the allegation proved “in respect of the citing of non-existent cases and incorrect legal propositions” but held that TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN CASE CITATIONS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS TO AMOUNT TO MISCONDUCT — a tribunal drawing the same line this register draws between a wrong citation and an invented one.
What happened as a result
Struck off the register of foreign lawyers; cannot practise. NO COSTS ORDER — the SRA accepted the respondent was impecunious and did not seek costs. The Tribunal found he “had embarked on the use of AI without giving any proper thought to the consequences”. He advanced “technological negligence” rather than intentional deception. Date chain: hearing 29 July 2026 · judgment 25 August 2026 · Tribunal publication 3 September 2026 · press reporting 4 September 2026.
Sources
- https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/judgments/
- https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/lawyer-struck-off-for-using-fake-ai-generated-cases-before-sdt
- https://www.cityam.com/lawyer-struck-off-for-using-fake-ai-evidence-in-his-own-disciplinary-case/
Every incident is confirmed against at least one reputable source (mainstream news, legal/official, or the organisation itself). Nothing unverifiable is listed. Accuracy is non-negotiable — Ukweli is a truth product.