UK LAWYERS CAUGHT USING IMAGINARY FRIENDS TO WIN CASES AS JUSTICE SYSTEM COLLAPSES INTO FANTASY REALM
In a stunning development that has legal experts questioning whether reality even exists anymore, UK lawyers have been caught submitting completely made-up legal cases to courts, with judges only noticing after wondering why so many precedents were set by “Justice McJustyface” and “Lord Fakingham of Madeupshire.”
LEGAL SYSTEM NOW BASICALLY JUST ELABORATE GAME OF MAKE-BELIEVE
The High Court issued an urgent warning after discovering barristers were using artificial intelligence to generate fictional case citations, essentially treating the British legal system like a creative writing workshop run by someone having a psychotic break.
“We became suspicious when a lawyer cited the landmark case of ‘R v. Totally Real Person (1823)’ which apparently established that ‘judges must always rule in favor of whoever has the shiniest shoes,'” said Justice Harold Pembrook. “Also concerning was ‘Bigglesworth v. Ministry of Magic,’ which isn’t even from our universe.”
BARRISTERS DEFEND PRACTICE AS “ACTUALLY SORT OF BRILLIANT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT”
Leading QCs have defended the practice, arguing that making sh!t up is actually 97% more efficient than traditional legal research.
“Why spend hours looking for a relevant precedent when you can just invent one that perfectly supports your argument?” said Reginald Farthington, KC, while adjusting his obviously fake mustache. “It’s bloody genius if you ask me.”
EXPERTS WARN OF POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES, LITERALLY NO ONE LISTENS
Dr. Sue Ingforthtruth, Professor of Legal Ethics at Completely Real University, warned that the practice could have “catastrophic consequences.”
“We’re seeing cases where AI has fabricated judgments that claim obscure 18th-century laws require defendants to ‘do the hokey pokey and turn themselves around’ before sentencing,” she explained. “Last week, a family court judge nearly awarded custody of a child to a fictional character from EastEnders.”
COURTS NOW IMPLEMENTING STRICT “PINKY PROMISE” SYSTEM TO ENSURE TRUTH
The judiciary has announced new measures requiring barristers to pinky promise that their citations are real, with additional verification involving crossing their hearts and hoping to die.
“We’re also implementing a ‘three strikes and you’re disbarred’ policy,” explained Lord Chief Justice Reginald Hamsworth. “First offense gets you a stern talking-to. Second offense, we make you wear a dunce cap in court. Third offense, we tell your mum.”
LEGAL TRAINING NOW INCLUDES SPOTTING OBVIOUS BULLS#!T
Law schools across the UK are hastily updating curricula to include modules on “Detecting When Your Colleague is Just Making Cr@p Up.” Cambridge Law has introduced a seminar titled “If It Sounds Too Convenient To Be True, It Probably Came From A Silicon-Based Bull$h!t Generator.”
According to entirely factual statistics we definitely didn’t make up just now, approximately 73% of legal arguments now contain at least one citation that exists only in the fevered imagination of a language prediction algorithm that learned law by reading John Grisham novels and watching “Suits.”
In a final desperate measure, the High Court has ordered all barristers to submit a notarized document confirming they understand that “just because something would be really convenient for your case doesn’t mean you can pretend some judge said it 200 years ago, you absolute f@cking walnuts.”
