We’re standing at a moment of real change in the practice of law. Just as the personal computer, the internet and smartphones reshaped our world, artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to transform legal work—quickly and profoundly. Trying to capture its benefits and risks is a little like trying to explain “what the internet is and how it will be used” in the 1990s: everyone knows it’s important, but few can see the full picture. For lawyers, understanding AI is no longer optional. Staying effective and competitive requires mastering both the opportunities and the pitfalls. Clients, too, should understand how AI may affect their cases—sometimes to their benefit, and sometimes at their expense.
What Is AI, and Where Do the Risks Lie?
At its core, AI refers to computer systems that perform tasks requiring human intelligence. For legal work, the most relevant branch is Natural Language Processing (NLP)—technology that allows machines to read, analyze and generate human language. Today, NLP drives the tools that power automated document review, case summarization, legal research, drafting and more.
But there’s a catch: AI is not foolproof. Even sophisticated systems can produce what are known as “hallucinations”—plausible-sounding answers that are legally or factually wrong. We’ve seen lawyers sanctioned for citing AI-generated cases that didn’t exist, with penalties ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 per false citation and rising. This has happened across the country—Texas, New York, Colorado, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and beyond.
The Problem Ranges From:
- Factual errors: AI simply makes up fictional citations or misstates rules.
- Misgrounded responses: AI describes the law accurately but attributes it to cases or sources that, on inspection, don’t support the claim.
Notably, even tools from respected legal research providers are susceptible. ChatGPT, for instance, comes with a clear disclaimer: it “may produce inaccurate information.” Unfortunately, not every legal software vendor is as transparent.
Why Human Oversight Can’t Be Replaced
AI can accelerate workflows, but it cannot take the place of legal judgment. Lawyers, judges and their clerks must guard against automation bias (blindly trusting what the machine spits out) and confirmation bias (embracing only the results that support a preconceived view).
Every AI-generated recommendation, summary or citation demands human verification. Without it, lawyers risk sanctions, malpractice claims or simply embarrassment. The bottom line: no tool, however advanced, is a substitute for professional responsibility.
Using AI the Right Way
So, if hallucinations and sanctions are risks, should lawyers use AI at all? The answer is yes—absolutely—provided it’s used responsibly. When properly managed, AI can save hundreds of hours and cut costs for clients.
A Few Key Don’ts for Lawyers:
- Don’t feed privileged or confidential information into open-source tools.
- Don’t rely on results without verification.
- Don’t cite cases without personally checking that they exist and say what you claim they say.
Use AI for Tasks Like:
- Summarizing discovery material and medical records.
- Note-taking and transcribing.
- Drafting correspondence, demand letters, discovery and contracts.
- Background research on witnesses, entities or standards.
- Language translation
These uses can trim hours off repetitive tasks, freeing lawyers to focus on editing rather than drafting, and using higher-value strategy and advocacy.
Data Privacy and Ethics
AI also raises urgent questions about privacy. Many everyday smartphone apps—Life360, Greenlight, MyRadar, GasBuddy—track driving habits and other behavioral data, often without users realizing the breadth of information collected. While some of this data is marketed to insurance companies, it’s increasingly surfacing in litigation, particularly in auto accident cases.
Tracking doesn’t stop there. Hospitals and operating rooms are now adopting AI-driven monitoring tools that could yield discoverable data in medical malpractice cases. Lawyers who understand these trends will be better positioned to request and leverage this information in litigation.
AI in the Courtroom
AI is also entering the trial arena. Jury selection tools now use AI to scour prospective jurors’ online footprints, generating profiles to aid selection. AI can also create demonstratives and medical chronologies faster and cheaper than before.
But there’s a darker side: deepfakes. As manipulated digital evidence becomes easier to create, authenticating video, images and recordings has become both more important—and more complicated. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 (and state equivalents), lawyers must be prepared to authenticate digital evidence with rigor, often relying on forensic experts who analyze metadata or use AI-based deepfake detection tools.
Yet the “reverse deepfake problem” is just as real: defendants may claim authentic evidence is fake, sowing doubt in jurors’ minds. This unethical tactic has already emerged in high-profile trials. Jurors, familiar with photo-editing apps on their own phones, may already be skeptical of any digital evidence without airtight authentication. Free authentication tools exist and are widely available—but once jurors learn such tools exist, they may expect every piece of evidence to be verified with them, placing new burdens on lawyers and clients alike.
Final Takeaways
For lawyers, deciding how to use AI comes down to efficiency, ethics and accuracy. The best practices include:
- Identifying the bottlenecks in your workflow.
- Testing where AI can provide greater accuracy or consistency.
- Experimenting with tools your trusted colleagues recommend.
- Carefully testing new tools before signing long-term contracts.
- Establishing firm-wide policies around appropriate AI use, coupled with active training.
For clients, the advice is just as practical: know what data your apps and devices are capturing, ask your attorney how AI might affect your case, and understand how it could influence both costs and evidence strategy.
Conclusion
AI is not a passing trend—it is quickly becoming part of the DNA of legal practice. The key question isn’t whether lawyers will use it, but how. With discipline, oversight and judgment, lawyers can harness AI’s strengths to deliver faster, more effective and often more affordable client service. But the guardrails matter. By remaining skeptical of outputs, mindful of ethical obligations and proactive about privacy concerns, both lawyers and clients can make AI an asset rather than a liability in the pursuit of justice.
Leave A Comment