Lawyers: one AI is too risky.
Other
Post
A US court just sanctioned two lawyers after briefs were filed with fake cases, wrong quotes, and real cases used for points they did not actually support.
The court’s point was simple: using AI was not the problem. Filing unchecked legal work was the problem.
This is the danger with AI hallucinations.
Sometimes AI invents a case.
That is easy to catch.
The bigger risk is when AI cites a real case, but says it supports something it does not.
That can fool a busy lawyer.
So stop thinking of AI as one chatbot.
Legal AI needs a multi-agent workflow:
• one agent researches
• one agent checks whether the cases exist
• one agent checks whether the case supports the point
• one agent challenges the argument
• the lawyer makes the final call
AI can speed up legal work.
But one unchecked AI answer can damage a case, a client, and a lawyer’s reputation.
Top comments · 5
- 17↑u/Strong_Guidance_6437Thats just totally lazy and incompetent use of AI. User problem
- 17↑u/tempfootOr…hear me out .. Just do your damned job. It’s weird in this day and age that people will spin in circles to avoid what? READING the cases you cite. Understanding them. Making arguments based on their substantive holdings. Differentiating from the cases cited by the other party. Distinguishing dicta. Suggesting literally anything else just means not understanding the work, at all. Can ai systems help with that? Yes, but not by adding more layers to sidestep doing the work.
- 12↑u/stroll_onLLMs checking other LLMs doesn’t solve the problem.
- 8↑u/NDISwhispererAI prepared slop posts about AI
- 4↑u/Strict_Warthog_2995All you're doing is taking the risk and multiplying it by the number of additional agents. Cross-agent/model checking is fine, but no substitute for your own legal research from reliable sources.