Understanding AI Hallucinations
Generative AI’s creative capabilities come with inherent risks that legal professionals must comprehend. These systems can produce output that appears realistic but contains misleading or entirely fabricated information. Citations may reference real sources that don’t contain the purported language, or they may create entirely fictional cases and legal authorities.
Professional guidance from California, Florida, New York, and other jurisdictions has consistently cautioned lawyers to become proficient in generative AI before implementation. This requires understanding both the tools themselves and the necessity of verifying all AI-generated output before court submission.
The Verification Imperative
The solution, according to experts, lies in treating AI output with the same scrutiny applied to work from law clerks, associates, or co-counsel. The only way to ensure that a cited case or authority is accurate is to check it carefully and verify the existence, the content, and whether it is still valid authority and not overturned or superseded.
This human-in-the-loop approach ensures that AI functions as “co-intelligence rather than a replacement,” allowing legal professionals to maximize efficiency without compromising ethical standards. Lawyers must maintain control, providing human oversight to ensure accuracy, context, and ethical compliance.
