Abhishek Kumar

Introduction

Abhishek Kumar is a 41-year-old registered foreign lawyer who was struck off the register by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in a ruling reported on 4 September 2026, meaning he can no longer practise law. His case drew attention well beyond the ordinary run of disciplinary outcomes because it was the first time the Tribunal had to deal with the issue of AI hallucinations. Kumar appeared before the SDT on the regulatory fallout from a 2024 criminal conviction for knowingly employing a worker who was disqualified from working because of his immigration status. While defending himself, he filed a written answer drafted with AI that contained misleading quotations and non-existent cases — and then apologised for it with an AI-drafted email that contained further false material.

Background Information

Kumar worked as an immigration lawyer and held registration as a foreign lawyer, a status that allows lawyers qualified outside the United Kingdom to practise in England and Wales under a regulatory register maintained by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). In 2024, he was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of knowingly employing a vulnerable adult who was disqualified from working due to his immigration status, paying him “cash in hand”. He was sentenced to a 12-month community order and 150 hours of unpaid work. That conviction led to his referral to the SDT, the tribunal that hears disciplinary cases against lawyers regulated in England and Wales, setting in motion the proceedings that would end his legal career.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. Kumar’s 2024 conviction at the Central Criminal Court is a matter of court record: he was convicted and sentenced to a 12-month community order and 150 hours of unpaid work. The findings that followed were adjudicated by a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, whose striking-off order is a matter of tribunal record, not a criminal conviction. Kumar accepted that his actions breached one professional principle and that he failed to uphold the administration of justice, but denied that they breached public trust and confidence in the profession.

Facing the Tribunal over the regulatory consequences of his conviction, Kumar chose to defend himself rather than instruct representation. The written answer he submitted to the Tribunal was drafted with AI, and it included misleading quotations and references to cases that did not exist. The SRA, acting as the legal regulator in the proceedings, identified the false citations. Kumar then emailed to explain and apologise for the fabricated material — but that email, too, had been drafted using AI, and it contained further false material of its own.

Before the Tribunal, Kumar accepted that his actions breached one of the principles of professional conduct and that he had failed to uphold the administration of justice. He said he deeply regretted that his “technological negligence created a risk of bringing the profession into disrepute”, but denied that his actions breached public trust and confidence in the profession. He told the Tribunal he had no intention to mislead anyone and simply did not have the expertise to verify what the AI had produced. The Tribunal dismissed his excuses. It ruled that the harm caused by his misconduct was high both for the immigration violation and for the AI misuse, and made clear that Kumar would have been struck off for either the immigration offence or the AI misconduct independently. It ordered that he be struck off the register.

Public Reaction and Consequences

City AM reported the strike-off under a headline about fake AI evidence, framing the case as a sign of a wider professional-services problem with AI. The reporting placed Kumar’s case in the context of a run of AI-related incidents in the legal sector: in May 2026, the law firm Pinsent Masons was criticised by a High Court judge after a lawyer sent the court AI-generated letters containing false legal information, and the firm referred the matter to the SRA, which was investigating further. In August 2026, the SRA issued a formal warning about AI after receiving 42 reports of AI misuse and fake court citations, as “AI hallucination” continued to plague the legal and professional services industry. Kumar’s was the first case in which the SDT itself had to deal with the issue. The consequence of the Tribunal’s ruling was his removal from the register.

Current Status

As of the ruling reported on 4 September 2026, Kumar has been struck off the register and can no longer practise law. His 2024 criminal conviction and the sentence imposed — the 12-month community order and 150 hours of unpaid work — remain matters of court record. The available reporting contains no indication that he has appealed the Tribunal’s decision.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order ends Kumar’s ability to practise law in the jurisdiction where he was registered as a foreign lawyer. The Tribunal’s finding that it would have struck him off for either the immigration offence or the AI misuse on its own underscored that neither half of the case was marginal. His own defence framing — that his “technological negligence” had created a risk of bringing the profession into disrepute, that he had no intention to mislead, and that he lacked the expertise to verify AI output — was rejected as an excuse by the Tribunal, which found the harm from both the immigration violation and the AI misuse to be high. His case is now cited as the first SDT dealing with AI hallucinations, at a moment when the regulator was formally warning the profession about exactly that risk.