Courts and technology have often stood at opposite poles with judges inclined towards precedent and technology relentlessly pursuing innovation. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated some level of technological adaptation in the courtroom, making processes like e-filing and virtual court proceedings commonplace. But the judicial system has yet to reconcile fully with the latest technological wave – generative AI (GenAI).
Since GPT-4’s launch, lawyers have leaned heavily on GenAI for the drafting and submission of pleas and memoranda. The understanding of this technology, however, seems scant among lawyers, leading to a flurry of legal documents rife with false case citations generated by AI.
Judges have notably warned against trusting AI outputs blindly. The number of lawyers being scrutinised for substandard research and dubious case citations has seen a dramatic rise since 2024. An alarming number of them have faced severe repercussions as well:
- A Massachusetts Superior Court sanctioned a lawyer for submitting multiple memoranda with false case citations (2/12/24).
- British Columbia courts also reprimanded and fined a lawyer for a fabricated precedent (2/20/24).
- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida suspended a Florida attorney for submissions citing fake cases (3/8/24).
- In an embarrassing encounter, a repeat offender was flagged by the court for false case citations, which led to the case being dismissed post a summary judgment (3/21/24).
- The 9th Circuit summarily dismissed a case without entertaining the merits due to the lawyer’s reliance on bogus case citations (3/22/24).
The above incidents expose a lack of basic competence in lawyers and not a failure of technology. Judges across the country are responding by implementing orders to regulate the application of GenAI in their courtrooms. The Responsible AI in Legal Services (RAILS) are documenting these measures to ensure awareness and compliance.
Whilst these steps are commendable, the lack of uniformity in their provisions may potentially unravel additional complexities for litigants and practitioners serving in multiple courts. Instead, what we need is a robust, holistic approach centered on education on responsible AI use and the importance of diligent review and thorough legal analysis. This will not only address the immediate infractions at hand but also tackle the bigger issue of superficiality in client representations, a trait unbecoming of any legal professional.
The culprit here is not technology but attorney competency. GenAI is just a tool, and it should be wielded with discretion and understanding. A knee-jerk resistance towards GenAI is not a new phenomenon. The focus should be on shaping the right approach to deploy this tool rather than shunning it altogether. It behooves the legal profession to leverage technology to its advantage and not let it become its Achilles heel.
The original article in this respect was published on Above the Law.