AI in Court: When Machine Errors Become Legal Nightmares

Robo-Legal Advice on Trial

Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping legal workflows, but it’s also dragging a new class of risk into courtrooms: hallucinated content and fake citations posing as legitimate legal arguments. As generative AI tools like ChatGPT become common drafting aids for busy lawyers, incidents of AI-generated briefs containing made-up cases or legal precedents are emerging, some even making it into official filings. In one high-profile example, lawyers cited fictional case law—created by AI—before a federal judge. What was once a time-saving innovation is now causing real-world repercussions, from professional misconduct to potential miscarriages of justice.

No Legal Framework, No Safety Net

The rise of unreliable AI in legal settings is exposing a yawning regulatory gap. Unlike in medicine or aviation, there are few enforceable standards governing the use of AI in law. Legal professionals say they’re flying blind, without clear guidance on how, when, or whether AI-generated content should be used or disclosed. Judges, meanwhile, are increasingly skeptical, issuing stern warnings and demanding affidavits to confirm human review. As AI becomes more deeply entrenched in legal processes, experts are urging for systemic guardrails—training, verification protocols, even new laws—to ensure trust in justice isn’t undermined by bad data.

Can the Courts Catch Up?

Despite the dangers, AI’s productivity appeal in law is undeniable. With the promise of faster research, brief generation, and case summarization, many firms can’t afford to ignore it. The challenge now is how to integrate these tools responsibly. Some startups are building legal-specific AI systems designed to