Fabricated authorities have already reached the courts, and in Ayinde v Haringey the Divisional Court made clear that chambers leadership is expected to respond with practical and effective measures. This is that measure: live, on-site training built for barristers and clerks, grounded in the Bar Council and BSB guidance, and delivered hands-on rather than as a webinar.
The risk and the capability arrived together, and chambers has to hold both at once.
Courts in England and Wales have now dealt directly with AI-invented citations put before them, most prominently in Ayinde v Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin). The duty to verify is not new; the ways to breach it are.
The Divisional Court was explicit that those with leadership responsibilities, including heads of chambers, are expected to take practical and effective measures on safe AI use. The BSB’s Guidance on the use of AI and Other Technologies, in force since May 2026, reads AI directly into the existing Core Duties.
Senior judges use these tools well and say so publicly. Members who learn verification-first working get the drafting and research leverage without inheriting the risk, and chambers gets a defensible position.
For chambers leadership: heads of chambers, management committees, senior clerks and chambers directors.
For the whole set: members and staff together, capped so everyone works hands-on.
Training for the profession’s standards, not a sales pitch with slides.
Neura North is not a law firm and the workshop is not legal advice: it covers what the guidance says, not what chambers must conclude from it. There is no tool being sold in the room, no claimed accreditation, and no pretence that AI belongs in every corner of practice. Where it should be kept out, the workshop says so.
Because the courts have said so in terms. In Ayinde v Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the Divisional Court dealt with fabricated authorities put before a court and made clear that those with leadership responsibilities, including heads of chambers, are expected to take practical and effective measures on the safe use of AI. The Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board have both published guidance, and members are already using these tools, trained or not.
No. The workshop covers what the Bar Council and BSB guidance says and how other sets are responding to it, delivered as practical training rather than advice. Chambers remains responsible for its own regulatory position, and where a question needs a regulatory answer, the right place for it is the BSB itself.
The workshop is structured to support barristers’ CPD requirements under the BSB’s Established Practitioners Programme, where barristers plan and self-certify their own CPD against learning objectives. We provide a session outline and learning objectives that members can record. We do not claim any formal accreditation, because none exists to claim.
Daniel Doherty, founder of Neura North, a Leeds-based AI implementation company working with professional services firms across the UK. The sessions are practical and grounded in building and deploying these tools for working businesses, not theory. Neura North is not a law firm and does not give legal advice.
None. The half-day is built for a room of barristers and clerks with no technical preparation, working hands-on with the tools on realistic chambers scenarios. The people most sceptical at the start tend to get the most from it, because the risks are treated as seriously as the capabilities.
Yes. Sessions run in chambers at a time that suits the set, including early evening after court. The introductory session also runs remotely where diaries make on-site impractical.
Verification is the craft. AI is just the speed.
We use cookies to measure traffic and improve the site. Analytics and marketing stay off until you allow them. Cookie policy
Hello. Ask me anything about what AI could take off your plate, what it costs, or how the free audit works.
AI assistant, so check anything important with Daniel: 07766 404343
