AI Hallucinations in Court Filings: Attorneys Beware
Artificial intelligence is transforming the legal industry, but recent high-profile mistakes highlight the risks of relying on AI-generated legal research without human oversight. One alarming trend is the rise of AI "hallucinations," where AI fabricates case law, leading to serious ethical and procedural consequences.
A recent case involving Morgan & Morgan, the nation’s largest personal injury law firm, underscores this issue. In a lawsuit against Walmart, the firm submitted a motion in Wyoming Federal District Court in which nearly all cited cases—except one—were entirely made up. This error serves as a warning to all attorneys, including those practicing intellectual property law, about the dangers of unverified AI-generated legal research.
The Risks of AI in Legal Filings
The Wyoming federal judge overseeing the case swiftly issued an Order to Show Cause, demanding an explanation for the flawed filing. In response, the plaintiffs' lawyers acknowledged the error, stating that their AI platform "hallucinated" the references.
The ramifications for Morgan & Morgan remain to be seen, but this situation serves as a stark warning: while AI tools can be useful for legal research, they cannot replace human diligence and professional responsibility. Moving forward, attorneys must strike a balance between leveraging technology and maintaining the rigorous standards that the legal profession demands. The reality of litigation has changed, and so must the safeguards attorneys use to ensure accuracy and integrity in their work.
AI in IP Law: A Tool, Not a Replacement
For intellectual property lawyers handling complex trademark, patent, and copyright disputes, accuracy in legal research is paramount. Submitting fabricated or misinterpreted case law can result in court sanctions, damage a firm’s reputation, and jeopardize client trust. The Morgan & Morgan case illustrates the need for attorneys to rigorously verify AI-generated citations before including them in legal filings.
Beyond ethical concerns, even real cases must be carefully analyzed for context. In intellectual property litigation, a case that appears favorable at first glance may contain nuances that weaken an argument. Likewise, opposing counsel's filings should always be scrutinized to ensure the validity of cited precedents.
AI-powered tools can streamline research in intellectual property law, helping attorneys analyze case precedents, identify trends in patent litigation, and assess trademark disputes.
Best Practices for Attorneys
The legal industry, particularly in intellectual property law, is embracing AI to improve efficiency. AI can assist in tasks like patent analysis, prior art searches, and trademark infringement detection. However, as the Morgan & Morgan case shows, AI is not infallible. The responsibility ultimately falls on attorneys to ensure that legal filings meet the highest standards of accuracy and integrity.
For attorneys, including those specializing in intellectual property law, the key takeaway is clear: AI should be used as a tool, not a substitute for human expertise. Here are some best practices for integrating AI into legal research responsibly:
Verify All Citations – Always cross-check AI-generated case law with trusted legal databases like Westlaw, LexisNexis, or official court records.
Review Cases in Full – Do not rely on AI-generated summaries; read the full opinions to understand the context and applicability.
Monitor Opposing Filings – Just as your filings must be accurate, opposing counsel may also inadvertently (or intentionally) include AI-generated hallucinations.
Educate Your Team – Ensure that attorneys and paralegals understand the limitations of AI in legal research and develop firm-wide protocols for AI verification.
The Future of AI in Legal Research
As AI continues to evolve, law firms must establish safeguards to prevent similar mistakes. Intellectual property attorneys, in particular, must exercise caution when leveraging AI in their practice, ensuring that technology enhances—not compromises—their legal work.