Generic AI tools present serious risks for attorneys including hallucinated legal facts, confidentiality breaches, and strategic failures that can lead to sanctions and case dismissals.

• Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT create "hallucinations" - confidently stated but completely fabricated legal information including non-existent cases with fake names and citations
• Courts have sanctioned attorneys who submitted AI-generated fake cases, as in Mata v. Avianca and cases involving James Martin Paul
• Using generic AI violates ABA Model Rule 1.1 (duty of competence) when attorneys fail to verify information
• Consumer AI platforms often claim rights to store and reuse input data, violating attorney-client confidentiality under Rule 1.6
• Generic LLMs lack specialized knowledge needed for effective jury selection, missing critical psychographic factors that predict juror decisions
• Specialized legal AI tools offer better alternatives with proper security protocols, contractual data protections, and litigation-specific capabilities
• Attorneys remain fully responsible for verifying all AI outputs regardless of which tools they use

The path forward requires shifting from generic to purpose-built legal technology platforms that incorporate legal rigor, security compliance, and domain-specific expertise while maintaining human oversight of all AI-generated content.

Send us a text

https://scienceofjustice.com/