{"id":126688,"date":"2025-07-14T15:03:36","date_gmt":"2025-07-14T23:03:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/14\/lawyer-cites-ai-hallucinations-responds-with-pretentious-meditation-on-nature-of-being\/"},"modified":"2025-07-14T15:03:36","modified_gmt":"2025-07-14T23:03:36","slug":"lawyer-cites-ai-hallucinations-responds-with-pretentious-meditation-on-nature-of-being","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/14\/lawyer-cites-ai-hallucinations-responds-with-pretentious-meditation-on-nature-of-being\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawyer Cites AI Hallucinations, Responds With Pretentious Meditation On Nature Of Being"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It\u2019s a day that ends in \u201cy\u201d so we have another story about a lawyer filing fake citations with a court after Skynet trolled him with phony research. The first public hallucination humiliation<\/a> should\u2019ve nipped this in the bud and yet \u2014 somehow \u2014 the problem seems to be accelerating. The latest out of New York is, in a lot of ways, par for the course. Some non-existent case citations and misattributed quotations, but no wrong legal theories. And the lawyer responded swiftly upon learning of the mistake.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve said before that sanctions need to keep ratcheting up<\/a> to reflect that as these stories become more pervasive, lawyers still making these mistakes are running out of excuses. Still, if a lawyer responds quickly and contritely, they can enjoy some grace if only to draw a line between boneheaded errors and doubling down and citing more fake cases to defend the first set of fake cases<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So this story should sit comfortably in the \u201coops, my bad\u201d category. But then he decided to write his apology straight out of the deleted scenes from Dead Poets Society<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

My professional practice has always been guided by the principle that legal advocacy is not mere mechanical execution, but a craft that demands the gardener\u2019s touch\u2014a careful, lasting engagement that leaves something of oneself behind. Each citation, each argument, each procedural decision is a mark upon the clay, an indelible impression that may one day be studied, critiqued, or serve as a cautionary tale.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My eyes rolled so hard that I\u2019m dizzy. Come on, man! The profession is pretentious enough as it is without calling every citation an indelible mark upon the clay. <\/p>\n

\n

In this spirit, I recognize that the work we do as advocates\u2014our filings, our citations, our choices\u2014are not ephemeral. They endure, shaping the legal landscape and, in their own way, becoming part of the record of our professional lives. My aspiration is always to be the gardener, not the lawn-cutter: to leave a mark that is careful, thoughtful, and lasting, even as I acknowledge and learn from my errors.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ephemeral? You\u2019re not a goth kid trying to score a spot in the 8th grade literary magazine \u2014 you can just say \u201csorry\u201d without going all Albert Camus. There\u2019s a reason no one\u2019s writing: \u201cVerily, my failure to comply with the court\u2019s page limit has left me in a state of deep despondence not unlike that of the majestic black swan<\/em>\u2026.\u201d <\/p>\n

Thankfully, the brief gets back on track to recount the steps that led to the error, noting that he had employed cross-verification tools but that those had failed. He also identifies a breakdown in the legal technology landscape itself:<\/p>\n

\n

The primary source of citation inaccuracies stems from database migration complications wherein (i) many problematic citations originated from research conducted in December 2024 using Casetext with CoCounsel, (ii) when Casetext was subsequently acquired by Thomson Reuters and integrated into Westlaw, I discontinued my subscription due to prohibitive cost constraints, thereby losing verification access to previously compiled authorities, and (iii) this technological disruption created a verification gap that my alternative research methods failed to adequately bridge.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There\u2019s a lot of grumbling out there about Casetext\u2019s final absorption into Thomson Reuters. Multiple small and solo lawyers have expressed frustration about TR\u2019s pricing structure and it touches on access to justice issues if legal AI becomes a force multiplier only accessible to the deepest Biglaw pockets. On the other hand, AI is expensive \u2014 or at least all the work required to keep the product from hallucinating up fake cases is expensive \u2014 and companies have to get that money somewhere. TR paid over $600M for Casetext and they\u2019re going to have to get that money back. <\/p>\n

But all that aside, this explanation should raise red flags \u2014 see what I did there \u2014 because if the Casetext\/TR migration issue tripped up \u201cMichelangelo of the Motion\u201d over here, it\u2019s going to happen to someone else too. Casetext was too beloved of a platform for this to be an isolated situation. <\/p>\n

Then the response outlines the attorney\u2019s plans for the future:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Note how there\u2019s a plan that doesn\u2019t run away from AI. It\u2019s too trite and almost definitely bad policy to say, \u201cI promise I\u2019ll never use AI again.\u201d It\u2019s basically a high school abstinence pledge: noble, doomed, and going to involve gratuitous Bible quotes. That analogy might\u2019ve gotten away from me, but I\u2019m sticking by it. First of all, it\u2019s a lie because AI will weasel its way into everything before too long so there\u2019s no way to avoid it. And second, it\u2019s actually a useful tool as long as lawyers understand what it can and can\u2019t accomplish. The legal profession is going to use AI\u2026 figure out how to do it without injecting ethical disasters into the workflow.<\/p>\n

Honestly, attorneys who find themselves on the wrong end of a hallucination matter should look to this response as a template. Take immediate action, apologize, explain the problem so future lawyers know exactly what happened, and proactively forge an AI plan for the future. The substance<\/em> of this response should be taught in CLEs.<\/p>\n

OK, maybe don\u2019t follow everything from this template:<\/p>\n

\n

Your Honor, in the ancient libraries of Ashurbanipal, scribes carried their stylus as both tool and sacred trust\u2014understanding that every mark upon clay would endure long beyond their mortal span. As the role the mark (x) in Ezekiel Chapter 9, that marked the foreheads with a tav <\/em>(x) of blood and ink, bear the same solemn recognition: that the written word carries power to preserve or condemn, to build or destroy, and leaves an indelible mark which cannot be erased but should be withdrawn, let it lead other to think these citations were correct.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Oh my GOD, STOP! If the case isn\u2019t about repatriating an archaeological find, the word \u201cAshurbanipal\u201d should not be in the brief. It\u2019s a court filing, not lore for the next Assassin\u2019s Creed<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But hey\u2026 the gratuitous Biblical citation made it in there!<\/p>\n

(Full brief on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Lawyer Cites AI Hallucinations, Responds With Pretentious Meditation On Nature Of Being<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It\u2019s a day that ends in \u201cy\u201d so we have another story about a lawyer filing fake citations with a court after Skynet trolled him with phony research. The first public hallucination humiliation<\/a> should\u2019ve nipped this in the bud and yet \u2014 somehow \u2014 the problem seems to be accelerating. The latest out of New York is, in a lot of ways, par for the course. Some non-existent case citations and misattributed quotations, but no wrong legal theories. And the lawyer responded swiftly upon learning of the mistake.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve said before that sanctions need to keep ratcheting up<\/a> to reflect that as these stories become more pervasive, lawyers still making these mistakes are running out of excuses. Still, if a lawyer responds quickly and contritely, they can enjoy some grace if only to draw a line between boneheaded errors and doubling down and citing more fake cases to defend the first set of fake cases<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So this story should sit comfortably in the \u201coops, my bad\u201d category. But then he decided to write his apology straight out of the deleted scenes from Dead Poets Society<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

My professional practice has always been guided by the principle that legal advocacy is not mere mechanical execution, but a craft that demands the gardener\u2019s touch\u2014a careful, lasting engagement that leaves something of oneself behind. Each citation, each argument, each procedural decision is a mark upon the clay, an indelible impression that may one day be studied, critiqued, or serve as a cautionary tale.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My eyes rolled so hard that I\u2019m dizzy. Come on, man! The profession is pretentious enough as it is without calling every citation an indelible mark upon the clay. <\/p>\n

\n

In this spirit, I recognize that the work we do as advocates\u2014our filings, our citations, our choices\u2014are not ephemeral. They endure, shaping the legal landscape and, in their own way, becoming part of the record of our professional lives. My aspiration is always to be the gardener, not the lawn-cutter: to leave a mark that is careful, thoughtful, and lasting, even as I acknowledge and learn from my errors.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ephemeral? You\u2019re not a goth kid trying to score a spot in the 8th grade literary magazine \u2014 you can just say \u201csorry\u201d without going all Albert Camus. There\u2019s a reason no one\u2019s writing: \u201cVerily, my failure to comply with the court\u2019s page limit has left me in a state of deep despondence not unlike that of the majestic black swan<\/em>\u2026.\u201d <\/p>\n

Thankfully, the brief gets back on track to recount the steps that led to the error, noting that he had employed cross-verification tools but that those had failed. He also identifies a breakdown in the legal technology landscape itself:<\/p>\n

\n

The primary source of citation inaccuracies stems from database migration complications wherein (i) many problematic citations originated from research conducted in December 2024 using Casetext with CoCounsel, (ii) when Casetext was subsequently acquired by Thomson Reuters and integrated into Westlaw, I discontinued my subscription due to prohibitive cost constraints, thereby losing verification access to previously compiled authorities, and (iii) this technological disruption created a verification gap that my alternative research methods failed to adequately bridge.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There\u2019s a lot of grumbling out there about Casetext\u2019s final absorption into Thomson Reuters. Multiple small and solo lawyers have expressed frustration about TR\u2019s pricing structure and it touches on access to justice issues if legal AI becomes a force multiplier only accessible to the deepest Biglaw pockets. On the other hand, AI is expensive \u2014 or at least all the work required to keep the product from hallucinating up fake cases is expensive \u2014 and companies have to get that money somewhere. TR paid over $600M for Casetext and they\u2019re going to have to get that money back. <\/p>\n

But all that aside, this explanation should raise red flags \u2014 see what I did there \u2014 because if the Casetext\/TR migration issue tripped up \u201cMichelangelo of the Motion\u201d over here, it\u2019s going to happen to someone else too. Casetext was too beloved of a platform for this to be an isolated situation. <\/p>\n

Then the response outlines the attorney\u2019s plans for the future:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Note how there\u2019s a plan that doesn\u2019t run away from AI. It\u2019s too trite and almost definitely bad policy to say, \u201cI promise I\u2019ll never use AI again.\u201d It\u2019s basically a high school abstinence pledge: noble, doomed, and going to involve gratuitous Bible quotes. That analogy might\u2019ve gotten away from me, but I\u2019m sticking by it. First of all, it\u2019s a lie because AI will weasel its way into everything before too long so there\u2019s no way to avoid it. And second, it\u2019s actually a useful tool as long as lawyers understand what it can and can\u2019t accomplish. The legal profession is going to use AI\u2026 figure out how to do it without injecting ethical disasters into the workflow.<\/p>\n

Honestly, attorneys who find themselves on the wrong end of a hallucination matter should look to this response as a template. Take immediate action, apologize, explain the problem so future lawyers know exactly what happened, and proactively forge an AI plan for the future. The substance<\/em> of this response should be taught in CLEs.<\/p>\n

OK, maybe don\u2019t follow everything from this template:<\/p>\n

\n

Your Honor, in the ancient libraries of Ashurbanipal, scribes carried their stylus as both tool and sacred trust\u2014understanding that every mark upon clay would endure long beyond their mortal span. As the role the mark (x) in Ezekiel Chapter 9, that marked the foreheads with a tav <\/em>(x) of blood and ink, bear the same solemn recognition: that the written word carries power to preserve or condemn, to build or destroy, and leaves an indelible mark which cannot be erased but should be withdrawn, let it lead other to think these citations were correct.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Oh my GOD, STOP! If the case isn\u2019t about repatriating an archaeological find, the word \u201cAshurbanipal\u201d should not be in the brief. It\u2019s a court filing, not lore for the next Assassin\u2019s Creed<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But hey\u2026 the gratuitous Biblical citation made it in there!<\/p>\n

(Full brief on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It\u2019s a day that ends in \u201cy\u201d so we have another story about a lawyer filing fake citations with a court after Skynet trolled him with phony research. The first public hallucination humiliation should\u2019ve nipped this in the bud and yet \u2014 somehow \u2014 the problem seems to be accelerating. The latest out of New […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":126634,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Headshot-300x200-g2bbTk.jpeg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126688\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/126634"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}