Newsroom

Updated 20 September 2026

What’s changing in AI

A running record of what changes in AI regulation, and in the Inferis platform, for professionals who handle sensitive documents. Maintained by the Inferis team. Newest first.

3 Jun 2026

Courts

Ninth Circuit suspends two attorneys, mandates AI-disclosure certification after fabricated citations

In Lnu v. Blanche, the Ninth Circuit suspended Orange County immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds from practicing before the court for six months and fined each $2,500, after their briefs cited two nonexistent cases — 'Eduardo v. Garland' and 'Lay v. Holder' — and misquoted several real ones. The panel said the sanction turned not on using generative AI itself but on the attorneys' lack of candor, having recast the fabrications as typographical errors rather than admitting their AI origin. For two years, filings by Sethi, Rounds, and every attorney at their firm before the Ninth Circuit must include a sworn statement disclosing any generative-AI use, naming the tool, and certifying that the signer personally verified every citation and quotation.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

17 Sep 2026

Courts

Employment Appeal Tribunal: AI-verification duty extends to litigants in person

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the personal-responsibility principle requiring careful verification of AI-generated material applies to litigants in person, not only to represented parties and their lawyers. Terence Hancox, appealing the strike-out of claims against the National Farmers' Union and four of its employees, filed a skeleton argument running to roughly 300 pages and 132,000 words that he confirmed had been generated using ChatGPT; it did not comply with the EAT's Practice Direction, which calls for skeleton arguments of five to fifteen pages. Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge in the EAT, held that 'the underlying principles of personal responsibility and accuracy apply to all persons who submit documents to a court or tribunal,' and that 'simply submitting the product of generative AI to a court or tribunal, or placing the onus to check a document onto an opponent, is not acceptable.'

Employment Appeal Tribunal

15 Sep 2026

Courts

Los Angeles judge fines State Farm defense counsel over AI-fabricated case citations

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Bradley ordered Musick, Peeler & Garrett attorney Jacquelene Robinson to pay $999.99 — one cent under the threshold that would trigger a mandatory referral to the State Bar — after filings in a Carson, California fire and storm damage claim against State Farm cited seven cases that do not exist. Robinson had used the legal AI tool Irys, believing it drew on her firm's Westlaw subscription, and did not independently check the citations before filing; co-counsel Kenneth Katel apologised to the court and to opposing counsel once the fabrications were caught.

Law360

18 Aug 2026

Courts

Washington federal court excludes expert after $3,000 sanction over AI-fabricated citations

In LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc., Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright (W.D. Wash., Tacoma) fined plaintiff's counsel $3,000 in July under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 after finding dozens of inaccurate, AI-generated citations across at least five filings — the product of ChatGPT and Claude used to build a citation table that was also handed to two retained experts. On 18 August the court went further, excluding one expert's report entirely after the same fabricated citations undermined its reliability, a ruling that could cost the plaintiff her ability to prove the case.

Washington State Bar Association (NWSidebar)

9 Sep 2026

Courts

New Mexico Supreme Court holds attorney in contempt over ChatGPT-fabricated murder-appeal brief

In a 9 September order, the New Mexico Supreme Court held Santa Fe attorney Stephen Aarons in direct contempt and fined him $5,000 after he filed a murder-appeal brief containing testimony attributed to four wholly fabricated witnesses, generated by ChatGPT and never checked before filing. Aarons had used the tool to summarise the trial record for client Oscar Renee Sandoval's appeal of a first-degree murder conviction; the court struck every brief he had submitted, barred him from appearing before it pending a referral to the state's attorney disciplinary board, and appointed a public defender to refile the appeal.

The Detroit News

30 Jul 2026

Regulation

Ireland's AI Office stands up, first CEO appointed

The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Act 2026, signed into law by President Connolly on 21 July, established the AI Office of Ireland as an independent statutory body and Ireland's central coordinating authority for the EU AI Act. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment confirmed Paul Byrne, formerly of the Medical Council of Ireland, as the Office's first Chief Executive Officer; it became operational on 2 August, coordinating Ireland's existing sectoral regulators under the AI Act's distributed-authority model.

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment

3 Sep 2026

Courts

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's first AI-hallucination case ends in strike-off

In its first case dealing with a lawyer's use of generative AI, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck registered foreign lawyer Abhishek Kumar off the register (case 12884-2026). Kumar used AI to draft his written answer to separate SRA disciplinary charges; that answer contained misleading quotations and non-existent case citations. After the regulator flagged the errors, Kumar used AI again to prepare his explanation, which itself contained further fabricated material. The Tribunal found the harm from the AI misconduct alone was high, and noted Kumar would have been struck off for either the original conduct or the AI misuse independently.

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

7 Jul 2026

Regulation

UK Jurisdiction Taskforce issues final statement on AI liability under English law

The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce published its final Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms under the private law of England and Wales, following a public consultation opened in January 2026. The statement concludes that existing English private law resolves most AI liability questions without new AI-specific legislation: professionals can be held liable in negligence both for over-relying on AI output and for failing to use available AI tools, while developers of foundation models are unlikely to bear liability for unforeseeable downstream harms. It was prepared by the Taskforce's AI drafting team, chaired by Matthew Lavy KC, and launched at an event hosted by LawtechUK and the Law Society.

LawtechUK / UK Jurisdiction Taskforce

4 Sep 2026

Courts

Quebec's courts adopt joint guidelines on judges' use of generative AI

The Court of Appeal, Superior Court, Court of Quebec and the province's municipal courts published common guidelines, signed by all four chief judges, stating that judging is an exclusively human act. Generative AI may be used only for limited, fully human-supervised tasks such as revising a judge's own drafted text or locating information in specified sources, never for legal reasoning, assessing evidence or credibility, or drafting the substantive parts of a decision.

CBC News

20 Aug 2026

Regulation

Australian Parliament appoints a Joint Select Committee on AI

Both houses resolved to establish a Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence to examine AI's risks and opportunities and review whether existing laws, including copyright, consumer protection and national security frameworks, remain adequate. The 12-member committee is accepting submissions until 14 September and must report by 30 November 2026.

Parliament of Australia

3 Aug 2026

Regulation

Legal services named first sector for the UK's Advisory AI Growth Lab

The Ministry of Justice and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology opened applications for the Advisory AI Growth Lab, a government regulatory sandbox, with legal services chosen as its first sector. The Solicitors Regulation Authority, Legal Services Board, Council for Licensed Conveyancers and Information Commissioner's Office are all involved, giving around a dozen selected AI tools direct regulatory input while they are tested. Applications close 27 September 2026, with decisions expected by the end of October.

GOV.UK

22 May 2026

Courts

High Court rebukes Pinsent Masons over an AI-hallucinated insolvency rule

In Cork & Anor v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch), ICC Judge Mullen found that Pinsent Masons misled the court twice over a routine block transfer application: first by citing a provision of the Insolvency Rules 2016 that does not exist, then by using generative AI again to draft an explanatory letter that repeated the error. The firm self-referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the judge ordered a copy of the judgment sent to the regulator regardless.

ICLR

1 Sep 2026

Courts

Irish High Court requires GenAI declarations in court documents

Practice Direction HC 142, issued by the President of the High Court on 29 July, came into operation on 1 September. It covers court documents in civil proceedings, including pleadings, submissions, affidavits, witness statements and expert reports, and applies to proceedings whether instituted before or after that date. Affidavits and witness statements must now carry a declaration that generative AI was not used to generate their substantive content, including by altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting or rephrasing the evidence. Expert reports must carry an equivalent declaration and disclose the nature and extent of any generative AI used in preparing them. Non-compliance can draw adverse costs orders, orders rejecting documents in whole or in part, claims or defences struck out, and referral of practitioners to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority.

Courts Service of Ireland

28 Jul 2026

Courts

Illinois appeal court raises its sanction rate for AI citations

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District imposed a $15,000 sanction on an attorney whose response brief contained false case citations and false statutory quotations produced with a commercial AI subscription, set at $1,500 for each one and deliberately above the rate other courts have imposed for similar violations. The court said it had no choice but to increase fines for AI-hallucinated citations until those fines carry a significant deterrent effect.

ABA Journal

17 Aug 2026

Product

Organisations: multiple firms under one umbrella

Practices that run more than one firm can now group them under a single Organisation, with an organisation administrator who can grant and revoke people's access across those firms from a single console. Each firm keeps its own documents, users and access rules.

17 Aug 2026

Regulation

SRA issues a formal warning notice on AI misuse

The Solicitors Regulation Authority published a warning notice covering hallucinated citations in court filings, inadequate supervision of AI-assisted work, and confidentiality risks from entering client information into AI tools. Its central line is that using AI does not reduce, remove or replace the professional, regulatory or legal responsibility a solicitor holds for the quality and accuracy of their work. The notice states that failing to have proper regard to it puts solicitors at risk of disciplinary action.

SRA

2 Aug 2026

Regulation

AI Act Article 50 transparency duties take effect

The EU AI Act's Article 50 obligations became enforceable today. Providers and deployers of general-purpose AI systems must now disclose AI-generated or AI-assisted content, including chatbot interactions, synthetic audio, image and video, and deepfakes.

Cloud Security Alliance

2 Aug 2026

Regulation

Luxembourg designates the CNPD as its lead AI Act authority

Luxembourg's implementing bill names the CNPD as the default AI Act market surveillance authority, with ILNAS, the CSSF, the CAA and the ILR handling specific sectors. The CNPD is required to launch its first regulatory sandbox today.

Paperjam

23 Jul 2026

Regulation

AI Act transparency deadline is ten days out

The EU AI Act's Article 50 transparency obligations apply from 2 August 2026. They require anyone deploying a general-purpose AI system to disclose that content is AI-generated or AI-assisted. Most small and mid-sized professional firms have no plan in place for it.

Sidley Data Matters

15 Jul 2026

Regulation

Australia announces a national Office of AI

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a new Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and a forthcoming set of Australian Standards for AI, with legislation expected in early 2027.

Prime Minister of Australia

8 Jul 2026

Regulation

EDPB adopts guidelines on anonymisation and AI web scraping

The European Data Protection Board adopted guidelines stating that GDPR governs web scraping whenever personal data is involved, and that public visibility online is not consent. Open for public consultation until 30 October 2026.

EDPB

7 Jul 2026

Product

EU becomes Inferis's primary region

New development ships to the EU first. Documents, queries and model inference for EU firms stay in Frankfurt and Belgium.

3 Jul 2026

Product

Mistral becomes the default model behind EU queries

Inferis moves its EU query pipeline onto Mistral, a French, EU-based model provider, as part of a broader sovereignty push. A Vertex AI fallback remains in place.

1 Jul 2026

Regulation

APRA's CPS 230 amendments take effect in Australia

Updated operational-risk rules from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority now treat AI vendors used by regulated institutions as material service providers, requiring a formal register and a documented fallback plan.

APRA

29 Jun 2026

Regulation

Council approves AI Act's Digital Omnibus, defers high-risk deadlines

Parliament and Council finalised amendments deferring obligations for high-risk AI systems: standalone systems now have until 2 December 2027, systems embedded in already-regulated products until 2 August 2028. Article 50's transparency deadline is unaffected.

Council of the EU

10 Jun 2026

Regulation

EU Commission publishes AI content labelling Code of Practice

The Commission's final Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content gives providers a voluntary compliance path for Article 50, drafted by six independent experts with input from more than 180 stakeholders.

European Commission

3 Jun 2026

Regulation

Cloud and AI Development Act proposed

The European Commission proposed a four-tier sovereignty framework for public-sector cloud and AI procurement. Still a proposal moving through Parliament and Council, not yet adopted.

European Commission

31 May 2026

Product

Agent Core ships

Inferis replaces its query router with a grounded, tool-calling agent that decides how to answer each question and which tools to use.

Apr 2026

Courts

Nebraska Supreme Court suspends attorney over AI citations

57 of 63 citations in a filed appeal proved defective, 20 of them entirely invented. Asked directly whether he had used AI, the attorney first denied it, then admitted it. Suspended indefinitely pending a disciplinary investigation.

WOWT

Mar 2026

Courts

Sixth Circuit sanctions attorneys over fabricated citations

Two attorneys were sanctioned $15,000 each in Whiting v. City of Athens, on top of the other side's fees and double costs, for a brief containing more than two dozen fabricated citations.

Reason, The Volokh Conspiracy

17 Mar 2026

Regulation

French Bar guidance on generative AI now in force

The Conseil National des Barreaux published a deontological guide covering professional secrecy and GDPR obligations for generative AI use by avocats. It has applied since 17 March 2026.

Conseil National des Barreaux

9 Feb 2026

Regulation

SRA restates AI duties for solicitors

The Solicitors Regulation Authority updated its compliance guidance on AI. No new rules; a restatement of existing duties under the Standards and Regulations, with one headline expectation: it must always be clear to clients when they're dealing with AI.

SRA

Jan 2026

Regulation

Seven UK tax and accounting bodies issue joint AI guidance

The bodies behind PCRT, including ICAEW and CIOT, said putting a client's data into a public AI model without consent is likely a breach of confidentiality, unless the data is properly anonymised first.

Tax Adviser

Standing

Regulation

Law Society guidance on generative AI

The Law Society advises solicitors not to put confidential data into a generative AI tool where there is no real relationship with the vendor. The guidance is part of its Generative AI essentials.

The Law Society

The Brief

Inferis's regulatory newsletter, in full. Every issue, permanently archived here, exactly as sent.

Issue 14

France's notaires picked their AI. The deciding factor was where it runs.

Read issue

Issue 13

No one reviewed the decision. Now it's an €825 million problem.

Read issue

Issue 12

AI does not transfer your responsibility. Your regulator has now put that in writing.

Read issue

Issue 11

704 real secrets pulled from AI's 'hidden' reasoning. 64 were never shown to anyone.

Read issue

Issue 10

Article 50 is live. Here's what actually changed today.

Read issue

Issue 9

Ten days to the deadline. Nineteen days without the model.

Read issue

The brief

AI and regulation, every fortnight.

What's changing in AI regulation and enforcement. What it means for client work. The deadlines worth watching. Written for practitioners.

Background

AI adoption in professional firms is running ahead of the policies meant to govern it. The numbers behind these stories:

54%

of firms have no AI policy

69%

already use AI daily

85%

of clients expect AI use to be disclosed

46%

of US accounting firms have put client data into public AI

About Inferis

Inferis is audit trailed AI for firms that can't risk client data in public tools. Documents stay in the firm's own region. Every query is logged in a tamper-evident record. Answers cite the source paragraph they came from.

Press contact

Inferis Team

hello@inferis.ai