Legal Professionals Should Treat AI as an Unreliable Source, Law Professor Says
Mark Osler, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, warned against using artificial intelligence for legal advice without verification, comparing the technology to "a rumor from your unreliable friend."
Speaking with WCCO Radio, Osler said federal district court judges and their clerks are overwhelmed with poorly written motions and petitions generated by AI. The problem stems from how these systems work: they scrape the internet without distinguishing between jurisdictions.
A case decided in Rhode Island might appear relevant to someone researching Minnesota law, but the difference matters legally. AI cannot account for these distinctions.
Where AI Can Help
Osler acknowledged limited value in using AI as a starting point. The technology might point someone toward relevant legal issues before consulting an attorney, similar to how a casual conversation with a knowledgeable person could identify areas worth exploring.
But the risk is significant. Sometimes AI output is accurate. Sometimes it is entirely wrong. Without legal training, users cannot reliably tell the difference.
The Cost Trade-off
Many people turn to AI because hiring a lawyer is expensive. The appeal is understandable. The danger is that cost savings evaporate if AI-generated legal arguments fail in court or create liability.
For AI for Legal professionals seeking to understand how these tools are reshaping client interactions and courtroom practice, or for those exploring AI Learning Path for Paralegals, the core principle remains: AI supplements human expertise. It does not replace it.
Your membership also unlocks:
