PSAHSC v. Tchampet
High Court · Jan 30, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- High Court
- Record ID
- psahsc-v-tchampet-2026-01-30
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a warning to the representative regarding the use of AI and potential contempt of court, but imposed no further sanction.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified that the representative used Microsoft Co-Pilot to generate legal submissions containing fabricated case law and phantom quotations. The judge issued a warning regarding potential contempt of court but took no further formal sanction against the representative, as he was already an unregulated individual previously struck off the roll of solicitors.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Written submissions relied on Ghosh v GMC [2001] UKPC 29 as authority for a proposition it did not support; court found the AI had produced an unsupported citation/authority. || False Quotes: Case Law | Written submissions contained a purported quotation attributed to Fatnani v GMC [2007] EWCA Civ 46 that did not appear in that authority; court found it to be a phantom created by AI. || False Quotes: Case Law | Written submissions included a purported quotation from para 21 of Gupta v GMC [2001] UKPC 61 which did not exist; court identified it as AI-generated.
Microsoft Co-Pilot is not a legal research tool; ban consumer chatbots for drafting submissions and quote-pull every authority.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Microsoft Co-Pilot
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal of a professional disciplinary panel decision regarding a nurse's fitness to practise, during which the court addressed the representative's use of AI-generated submissions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The representative used Microsoft Co-Pilot.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Do not treat a paid legal-research product as a substitute for source verification.
- Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.