What it means for a UK law firm
The Hamid jurisdiction takes its name from R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin), in which the Divisional Court warned that it would not hesitate to refer lawyers who misused its procedures to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. In Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the court described the jurisdiction as its inherent power to regulate its own procedures and to enforce the duties lawyers owe to the court.
The Hamid jurisdiction is now the usual route by which courts and tribunals deal with false citations generated by AI. Both Ayinde and UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid) [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) were Hamid hearings, and both led to referrals to professional regulators.
Example
Illustrative scenario
A firm receives a direction from the court requiring the solicitor with conduct of a matter to explain in writing how an authority that cannot be found came to be cited, and what checks were carried out. The solicitor's answer has to cover who drafted the document, who supervised it and what the firm has changed since.