The risks of using generative AI for legal copywriting
If you’re a business leader
On the surface, using generative AI tools
However, the convenience offered by AI technologies comes with notable risks, particularly when it comes to accuracy of legal writing
While there are certain applications for using AI in your legal practice, it’s important to tread with caution when it comes to legal writing in particular. Let’s get into the details.
The risks of inaccurate AI-generated content
One of the primary concerns with using AI for legal writing is the potential for “hallucinations.” Rawia Ashraf at Thomson Reuters explains that hallucinations occur when AI tools “provide incorrect answers with a high degree of confidence.” In simpler terms, these AI models may produce text that sounds accurate but is actually entirely fabricated. This poses a critical problem in legal contexts, where accuracy is essential to upholding clear legal and ethical standards.
Keep in mind that LLMs are not equipped with the reasoning capabilities of a human lawyer. Their knowledge is based on the data they’ve been trained on, and when they encounter gaps, they may fill them with made-up information. These hallucinations can be especially dangerous in legal writing, where every word is scrutinized, and the consequences of inaccuracy can be dire.
Take, for example, a recent case in the Western District of Virginia. A federal judge ordered attorneys to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for submitting a legal brief containing fabricated cases and quotations. The attorneys cited cases that didn’t exist and even quoted language from a ruling that never appeared in the original opinion. This grave error was attributed to reliance on AI — specifically, ChatGPT.?
Although the attorneys in this case likely didn’t intend to mislead the court, their failure to verify the AI-generated content led to serious repercussions. The attorneys now face possible sanctions and professional misconduct charges that could follow them for the rest of their careers. This is just one of a growing number of AI-sanction cases we’re seeing emerge in recent months, highlighting the dangers of using generative AI for critical legal tasks without thorough oversight.
领英推荐
Ethical and legal consequences for law firms
When a law firm uses generative AI for legal writing or even legal copywriting for their public-facing marketing materials and inadvertently publishes inaccurate or misleading information, the consequences can be far-reaching. Inaccurate legal copy on your website, marketing materials, or social media channels could misinform clients, which may lead to poor legal decisions. This can result in:?
Law firms have an ethical duty to provide accurate, reliable legal information. If AI-generated content leads to the dissemination of false or misleading information, firms may face accusations of negligence.?
For instance, courts have made it clear that even unintentional misuse of AI is not a defense. If an attorney relies on AI to draft legal documents or any type of published content, they are still responsible for ensuring the accuracy of those documents.
The consequences go beyond civil liability. The integrity of legal proceedings is paramount, and errors caused by faulty AI can disrupt cases, harm clients, and damage the judicial system. In the previously mentioned case of Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Associates Ltd., the judge's order for the attorneys to show cause was a necessary step to protect the integrity of the legal process.?
The bottom line? Even if AI hallucinations are unintentional, they can still lead to sanctions and damage an attorney’s professional standing.
This is a refreshing, thoughtful perspective on a tool that is too prone to inaccuracies and hallucinations to be dependable for such a sensitive field as the law. Excellent insights!