California Wants Lawyers to Verify Every AI Output
News & Commentary
Post
California's proposed comment to the ethics rule on "competence" would require lawyers to verify every piece of AI output used in connection with representing a client. (This is in addition to a proposed comment revision regarding the duty of candor to tribunals, making clear that you should check your work before submitting it to a court, duh.)
This has implications obviously for tech generally -- potential lawyers as bottlenecks in various workflows, worse than we are already. I offer my thoughts in the link below, including a link to the comment I submitted to the Bar Committee. Comments are still open through May 4 (link for submissions also included in the article).
Post: [Every F\*\*\*ing Line](https://open.substack.com/pub/novehiclesinthepark/p/every-fing-line?r=3wpgsc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true)
Top comments · 7
- 65↑u/AdrianHofmanThat anyone would sign off on AI generated work for legal without somehow checking, reviewing or validating it first is absolutely bonkers.
- 41↑u/sullivan9999There is one way to be 100% safe from looking like a fool for using fake AI content: Read it and confirm it’s accurate. If you submit something to a court that you haven’t read, you shouldn’t be a lawyer.
- 28↑u/Ultimate-Lex"Implications" on tech? Zero implications. We should and must verify everything anyway. I wouldn't avoid verifying an associate's research. Same standard applies here.
- 21↑u/Legitimate_Fig_4096I'm not seeing the problem.
- 16↑u/masshole-meerkatI should hope so!
- 18↑u/ai-attorneyIf you’re submitting AI-generated output to a court without checking every cite and every quote and every fact and every argument, you’re doing it wrong.
- 12↑u/neverspeakawordagainI can't imagine anything that's wrong with this. I read your post and, yes, risk tolerance for AI mistakes should be 0.