Expert Testimony Under Fire
Perhaps most alarming is the migration of AI hallucinations from legal briefs to expert evidence. The recent case of Kohls v. Ellison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4928 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2025), involved the Minnesota Attorney General’s office submitting expert testimony containing fabricated citations. Despite the Attorney General’s sincere apology and assertion that the office had no knowledge of the fake citations, the incident underscores how even experienced legal institutions can fall victim to AI-generated misinformation.
Similarly, In re Matter of Weber, 2024 NY Slip Op 24258 (N.Y. Surrogates Ct. Oct. 10, 2024), demonstrates that expert reports and affidavits are increasingly contaminated with AI-generated false information, creating a crisis of credibility that extends far beyond individual practitioners.
The Competency Crisis
Legal experts emphasizes that lawyers are ethically obligated to understand the technology they use, as mandated by Comment 8 of ABA Model Rule 1.1 and its state counterparts. Yet when it comes to generative AI, many practitioners fail to grasp both its capabilities and limitations.
“Lawyers need to step up their game, and get with the A.I. program” stated one analyst “It’s imperative that our field uphold its ethical and professional duties when integrating AI. The standards are well-defined, and the fixes are simple.”
The fundamental issue isn’t intentional misconduct but rather a profound misunderstanding of how generative AI functions. “I submit that lawyers and other legal professionals who make this mistake simply do not understand how generative AI functions and what is required to use it properly and effectively.”
