Bandla v. Solicitors Regulation Authority

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 13 de mayo de 2025, UK (Reino Unido) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en la herramienta de IA Google Search (Allegedly) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Fabricated case cited to support mental-health-based extension: R (on the application of Smith) v Parole Board [2005] EWCA Civ 188; SRA could not locate; judge confirmed it does not exist and appellant admitted he never checked.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited numerous non-existent authorities (about 27) across grounds and skeleton; maintained despite SRA pointing out; appellant accepted many do not exist and that he did not check them.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Mis-cited the 2000 Ghosh authority as a House of Lords decision; the court noted it was in fact a Privy Council case.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Argued that the Hague Service Convention 1965 required personal service of the SDT judgment abroad; court held the Convention inapplicable to SDT disciplinary proceedings and that "sent" under PD52D sufficed (relying on Brauwers and related authorities).
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Claimed SDT rules required personal service on him under rule 10; court held service was valid by leaving documents at his last known abode with his mother (rule 10(1)(b)).

Desenlace

Application for extension of time refused; appeal struck out as abuse of process; indemnity costs of £24,727.20 ordered; permission to appeal denied. Sanción económica: 24727 GBP. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/331/Venkateshwarlu_Bandla_v._SRA_UK_May_13_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.