In 2026, generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in law firms is becoming commonplace. Data from the soon-to-be-released 8am 2026 Legal Industry Report shows that the majority of legal professionals have personally used generative AI for work-related purposes.
If you’re one of those lawyers, you’ve undoubtedly discovered that AI tools, both legal-specific and general-purpose versions, can rapidly draft legal briefs that, at first glance, are thorough and convincing. But look closer, and you’ll discover that the output often includes inaccurate information, including fake case citations, misquotes, and misstated legal principles.
Unfortunately, not all lawyers take that step, ultimately failing to realize that what appears to be a high-quality legal document is, in fact, a house of hallucinated cards. Overwhelmed by looming deadlines and full caseloads, they’ve conducted cursory reviews of AI-drafted, mistake-ridden briefs and unknowingly submitted them to the courts.
Don’t make that mistake! AI can assist with traditional legal research, but does not replace the need to verify all cited authoritative sources. You must review the cases, laws, and regulations to confirm their accuracy and applicability to the issues at hand.
But don’t take my word for it. Let’s see what the judges have to say about your ethical obligations when using AI tools as part of the legal research process.
First, there’s Special Master Michael R. Wilner, former United States Magistrate Judge for the Central District of California. He recently expressed his frustration with briefs submitted to the court that included “bogus AI-generated research.” In Lacey v. State Farm General Ins. Co., Case No. CV 24-5205 FMO (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2025), he granted the motion to strike the offending attorneys’ supplemental briefs, denied their discovery motion, and imposed sanctions in the amount of $26,100 to reimburse the court for its time and $5,000 in fees for opposing counsel.
The Special Master explained the rationale for his decision: “The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong. Even with recent advances, no reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology — particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material. And sending that material to other lawyers without disclosing its sketchy AI origins realistically put those professionals in harm’s way.”
Similarly, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Indiana, Mark J. Dinsmore, was equally displeased 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). He recommended that the attorney before the court — who, on three occasions, submitted hallucinated briefs — should be personally sanctioned in the amount of $15,000.
According to Judge Dinsmore, “It is one thing to use AI to assist with initial research, and even non-legal AI programs may provide a helpful 30,000-foot view. It is an entirely different thing, however, to rely on the output of a generative AI program without verifying the current treatment or validity — or, indeed, the very existence — of the case presented. Confirming a case is good law is a basic, routine matter and something to be expected from a practicing attorney.”
The need to carefully review material cited in AI-generated legal documents was also emphasized in N.Z. v. Fenix Int’l Ltd., 8:24-cv-01655-FWS-SSC (C.D. Cal. December 25, 2025). The court determined that sanctions were appropriate because the attorney “used ChatGPT to assist in drafting the opposition briefs but failed to verify the validity of the AI-generated material … and failed to realize when, and to what event, ChatGPT was modifying her research/writing — supplementing and/or cross-pollinating concepts and authorities.”
Courts and ethics committees have made one point unmistakably clear: using AI does not change your duties or lower the standard of competence. Every case, citation, and legal proposition must still be read, checked, and confirmed as part of your professional and ethical obligations.
Generative AI does not exercise legal judgment, and it cannot tell you what the law is, whether a case exists, or whether it applies to your facts. That responsibility remains with the lawyer. You bear responsibility for the finished work product, and AI has not changed that fact. The buck stops with you.
Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind 8am MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.
The post AI Tools Are A Starting Point — Not A Substitute — For Legal Research appeared first on Above the Law.