As more and more lawyers use artificial intelligence (AI) in the profession, it is imperative that they not rely on this new tool without human legal knowledge to review any work product.
Robert A. Clifford, founder and senior partner of Clifford Law Offices and columnist for the Chicago Lawyer magazine, wrote about the issues lawyers are confronting as AI becomes a tool in their toolbox to improve efficiency when representing clients. That efficiency, however, should not give way to accuracy and full representation.
In his article in the February/March issue of the Chicago Lawyer, titled “Cautionary Tales,” Clifford wrote of lawyers who relied too heavily on AI, “The emerging consensus is that these submissions violate attorneys’ obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although some clients may demand the use of AI to save money, it is imperative that legal citations filed in any court be checked for accuracy.”
Clifford writes of lawyers who relied on generative AI to write legal briefs, only to find that non-existent cases are hallucinated by AI. “These cases also touch on the tension between technology and access to justice. Many solo practitioners and public defenders are using AI tools out of necessity, as they face crushing caseloads, limited resources, and the increasing complexity of litigation. In this context, generative AI appears to be a survival mechanism. Legal futurists argue that the solution is not to abandon AI, but to develop better tools that are transparent, verifiable, and embedded with safeguards.”
Click here to read the article in full.