Generative AI in Law Firms: Useful Drafts, Real Risks, and Your Non-Delegable Duty
In 2026, generative AI is common in law practice. Most lawyers have tried it and seen how fast it can spin up a convincing brief. Look closer, and the cracks show: fake citations, misquotes, and misstated rules. Some attorneys miss those errors under pressure - and courts are responding.
Courts Are Out of Patience
In Lacey v. State Farm General Ins. Co., Case No. CV 24-5205 FMO (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2025), Special Master Michael R. Wilner struck briefs that relied on "bogus AI-generated research," denied the discovery motion, and imposed $26,100 to reimburse the court and $5,000 to opposing counsel. His point was blunt: "No reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology - particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material."
Same theme in Mid Cent. Operating Eng'rs Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind. Feb. 21, 2025). After three hallucinated filings, Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore recommended a $15,000 personal sanction. As he put it, using AI for an initial view is one thing - relying on it without confirming "the very existence" and current treatment of authority is something else entirely.
And in N.Z. v. Fenix Int'l Ltd., 8:24-cv-01655-FWS-SSC (C.D. Cal. Dec. 25, 2025), the court sanctioned counsel for using ChatGPT, failing to verify the AI-generated material, and not noticing when the tool blended or modified research. The message across these decisions is clear: AI does not reduce your duty of competence. You still have to read, verify, and confirm every case, statute, and proposition.
What This Means for Your Workflow
- Use AI to brainstorm issues, structure arguments, or spot angles. Do not trust quotes, citations, or holdings without primary-source verification.
- Pull every cited case and statute from a trusted database. Read the primary law, confirm the holding, and ensure it applies to your facts and jurisdiction.
- Run a citator check (KeyCite/Shepardize or equivalent). Note any negative treatment and limiters.
- Confirm quotations, pin cites, dates, party names, and procedural posture line by line.
- Keep a research log showing what you checked, where you checked it, and when.
- If required by local rules or a judge's standing order, disclose AI assistance. Know your forum's expectations.
- Own the final draft. If you can't defend a line in court, it shouldn't be there.
Pre-Filing Checklist
- Every citation resolves to a real, accessible source you personally reviewed.
- Citator status captured for each authority, with notes on treatment and limits.
- Quotes match the source verbatim; pin cites point to the exact proposition.
- No cross-pollination: AI-generated text checked against the actual authorities it references.
- Controlling cases and statutes read end to end, not just headnotes or summaries.
- Jurisdiction and date relevance confirmed; no out-of-circuit or outdated authorities masquerading as controlling law.
Tools Help. Judgment Decides.
Generative AI can draft, but it can't exercise legal judgment. It won't tell you whether a case exists, whether it's good law, or how it applies to your facts. That responsibility sticks with you. The buck still stops at your signature.
Revisit your obligations under ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) and the certification you make under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. AI doesn't change those standards - it increases the need for disciplined verification.
Level Up Your AI Use - Without Risking Sanctions
If you're building AI fluency for legal work, focus on process: prompt discipline, source control, and verification workflows. For structured training on practical AI skills, see curated programs at Complete AI Training.
Use AI. Get speed. But protect your license - and your client - by verifying everything.
Your membership also unlocks:
