![\"Lawyer](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.attorneyatwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Lawyer-AI-Competence.jpg?resize=770%2C495&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
Table of contents<\/h2>\n\n- Law Students Are Learning AI Ethics, Use and Critique<\/a><\/li>\n
- But Lawyers Are Still Getting Burned Misusing AI<\/a>\n
\n- 1. The Colorado Suspension (ChatGPT Citations Gone Wrong)<\/a><\/li>\n
- 2. The AI Brief Fine (Lindell\u2019s Attorneys)<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- What AI Competence Means for Practicing Attorneys<\/a><\/li>\n
- From the Classroom to the Courtoom: Be Proactive About Lawyer AI Competence<\/a><\/li>\n
- More About Lawyer AI Competency on Attorney at Work<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n
Law Students Are Learning AI Ethics, Use and Critique<\/h2>\n
By the end of 2025, at least eight law schoolswill have introduced mandatory AI instruction for first-year students, integrating it into orientation, legal research and writing, or offering it as standalone courses. Some schools even conduct prompt-engineering exercises, comparing AI-generated drafts with professor versions to identify hallucinations and biases.<\/p>\n
The reasoning is straightforward: AI tools are becoming crucial in legal workflows, including drafting memos, redlining contracts, and supporting legal research. Graduating from law school without understanding your liability for hallucinations, sourcing errors, and prompt risks is like graduating from med school without knowing anatomy.<\/p>\n
A professor at Case Westernsummed it up nicely: Students should treat AI like a \u201cpartner,\u201d but one that must be vetted and supervised. Other schools are implementing certification tracks or mandatory modules on AI ethics, use and critique.<\/p>\n
Yes, legal academics once worried that teaching AI would weaken core skills. That argument seems to be losing momentum. The new consensus is that students should learn under supervision and not misuse AI on their first day at work.<\/p>\n
But Lawyers Are Still Getting Burned Misusing AI<\/h2>\n
Here are notable instances of misuse.<\/p>\n
1. The Colorado Suspension (ChatGPT Citations Gone Wrong)<\/h3>\n
In People v. Zachariah C. Crabill, a Colorado attorney was disciplined <\/a>after submitting a motion citing cases he found through ChatGPT \u2014 without verifying their accuracy. The citations turned out to be fictitious or false; attorney Crabill didn\u2019t flag the errors or withdraw the motion when he was alerted. Instead, he blamed the mistakes on a legal intern.<\/p>\nThe disciplinary order found violations of ethics rules, competence, diligence, truthfulness to the tribunal, and dishonesty, among others. The outcome was a one-year and one-day suspension, with 90 days active, and the remainder stayed pending probation.<\/p>\n
Crabill\u2019s case is now frequently cited as a classic example in warnings about why you \u201cdon\u2019t trust AI blindly.\u201d <\/p>\n
2. The AI Brief Fine (Lindell\u2019s Attorneys)<\/h3>\n
In another case out of Colorado, this summer a judge fined attorneys<\/a> representing MyPillow founder Mike Lindell about $3,000 each after they submitted a brief generated \u2014 or heavily assisted by \u2014 AI that contained numerous errors and fictitious citations. The court deemed it inexcusable: Lawyers have a duty to vet AI results, rather than relying on them blindly.<\/p>\nBetween a suspension and a fine, the message is clear: Misuse of AI can lead to serious consequences, beyond just reputational damage.<\/p>\n
What AI Competence Means for Practicing Attorneys<\/h2>\n
They won\u2019t be students forever. <\/strong>One day, those newly AI-trained graduates may join your firm \u2014 and point out errors you overlooked. However, beyond internal embarrassment, disciplinary cases reveal that courts and bar regulators are increasingly focusing on lawyer AI competence and paying greater attention to AI-related misconduct.<\/p>\nHere\u2019s what you should do now:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Treat AI advice like internal memos, not gospel. Always verify sources, check citations and cross-verify.<\/li>\n
- Keep thorough records. If you use AI to draft or do research, keep logs, drafts and records of prompts. Audit trails are crucial.<\/li>\n
- Integrate AI verification into your workflow. Employ peer reviews and spot checks to identify suspicious claims.<\/li>\n
- Educate your team now. Train associates on AI prompt risks, hallucinations, bias and ethics before problems occur.<\/li>\n
- Counsel clients thoroughly. If they use AI tools, advise them on the risks of reliance, liability and oversight \u2014 and be prepared to draft AI-related terms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
From the Classroom to the Courtoom: Be Proactive About Lawyer AI Competence<\/h2>\n
The classroom now surpasses the courtroom in AI awareness. Lawyers facing discipline today are being punished for mistakes that the next generation might never make \u2014 or at least shouldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Until that future arrives, it\u2019s your responsibility to be your own AI ethics instructor. Because when the next disciplinary complaint happens, \u201cI thought ChatGPT was right\u201d won\u2019t be a valid excuse for a lack of AI competence.<\/p>\n
Michael C. Maschke<\/em><\/strong> is President and Chief Executive Officer of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. He is an EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE), Certified Computer Examiner (CCE #744), AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE), Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP). He is a frequent speaker on IT, cybersecurity and digital forensics, and he has co-authored 14 books published by the American Bar Association. mmaschke@senseient.com.<\/em><\/p>\nSharon D. Nelson<\/em><\/strong> is the co-founder of and a consultant to Sensei Enterprises. She is a past president of the Virginia State Bar, the Fairfax Bar Association and the Fairfax Law Foundation. She is a co-author of 18 books published by the ABA. snelson@senseient.com<\/em><\/p>\nJohn W. Simek<\/em><\/strong> is the co-founder of and a consultant to Sensei Enterprises. He holds multiple technical certifications and is a nationally known digital forensics expert. He is a co-author of 18 books published by the American Bar Association. jsimek@senseient.com<\/em><\/p>\nMore About Lawyer AI Competency on Attorney at Work<\/h2>\n\n- 5 Essential Questions Every Lawyer Should Ask Before Using AI Tools<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n
- Should You Be \u2018Vibe Lawyering\u2019 with Generative AI?<\/strong><\/a> (Listen)<\/li>\n
- From Fear to Functionality: How Lawyers Can Ethically Integrate AI into Their Practice<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n
- Richard Susskind on AI for Lawyers: A Review of \u2018How to Think About AI\u2019<\/strong><\/a> (Listen)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Subscribe to Attorney at Work<\/h2>\n
- \n
- 1. The Colorado Suspension (ChatGPT Citations Gone Wrong)<\/a><\/li>\n
- 2. The AI Brief Fine (Lindell\u2019s Attorneys)<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- What AI Competence Means for Practicing Attorneys<\/a><\/li>\n
- From the Classroom to the Courtoom: Be Proactive About Lawyer AI Competence<\/a><\/li>\n
- More About Lawyer AI Competency on Attorney at Work<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n
Law Students Are Learning AI Ethics, Use and Critique<\/h2>\n
By the end of 2025, at least eight law schoolswill have introduced mandatory AI instruction for first-year students, integrating it into orientation, legal research and writing, or offering it as standalone courses. Some schools even conduct prompt-engineering exercises, comparing AI-generated drafts with professor versions to identify hallucinations and biases.<\/p>\n
The reasoning is straightforward: AI tools are becoming crucial in legal workflows, including drafting memos, redlining contracts, and supporting legal research. Graduating from law school without understanding your liability for hallucinations, sourcing errors, and prompt risks is like graduating from med school without knowing anatomy.<\/p>\n
A professor at Case Westernsummed it up nicely: Students should treat AI like a \u201cpartner,\u201d but one that must be vetted and supervised. Other schools are implementing certification tracks or mandatory modules on AI ethics, use and critique.<\/p>\n
Yes, legal academics once worried that teaching AI would weaken core skills. That argument seems to be losing momentum. The new consensus is that students should learn under supervision and not misuse AI on their first day at work.<\/p>\n
But Lawyers Are Still Getting Burned Misusing AI<\/h2>\n
Here are notable instances of misuse.<\/p>\n
1. The Colorado Suspension (ChatGPT Citations Gone Wrong)<\/h3>\n
In People v. Zachariah C. Crabill, a Colorado attorney was disciplined <\/a>after submitting a motion citing cases he found through ChatGPT \u2014 without verifying their accuracy. The citations turned out to be fictitious or false; attorney Crabill didn\u2019t flag the errors or withdraw the motion when he was alerted. Instead, he blamed the mistakes on a legal intern.<\/p>\n
The disciplinary order found violations of ethics rules, competence, diligence, truthfulness to the tribunal, and dishonesty, among others. The outcome was a one-year and one-day suspension, with 90 days active, and the remainder stayed pending probation.<\/p>\n
Crabill\u2019s case is now frequently cited as a classic example in warnings about why you \u201cdon\u2019t trust AI blindly.\u201d <\/p>\n
2. The AI Brief Fine (Lindell\u2019s Attorneys)<\/h3>\n
In another case out of Colorado, this summer a judge fined attorneys<\/a> representing MyPillow founder Mike Lindell about $3,000 each after they submitted a brief generated \u2014 or heavily assisted by \u2014 AI that contained numerous errors and fictitious citations. The court deemed it inexcusable: Lawyers have a duty to vet AI results, rather than relying on them blindly.<\/p>\n
Between a suspension and a fine, the message is clear: Misuse of AI can lead to serious consequences, beyond just reputational damage.<\/p>\n
What AI Competence Means for Practicing Attorneys<\/h2>\n
They won\u2019t be students forever. <\/strong>One day, those newly AI-trained graduates may join your firm \u2014 and point out errors you overlooked. However, beyond internal embarrassment, disciplinary cases reveal that courts and bar regulators are increasingly focusing on lawyer AI competence and paying greater attention to AI-related misconduct.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what you should do now:<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- Treat AI advice like internal memos, not gospel. Always verify sources, check citations and cross-verify.<\/li>\n
- Keep thorough records. If you use AI to draft or do research, keep logs, drafts and records of prompts. Audit trails are crucial.<\/li>\n
- Integrate AI verification into your workflow. Employ peer reviews and spot checks to identify suspicious claims.<\/li>\n
- Educate your team now. Train associates on AI prompt risks, hallucinations, bias and ethics before problems occur.<\/li>\n
- Counsel clients thoroughly. If they use AI tools, advise them on the risks of reliance, liability and oversight \u2014 and be prepared to draft AI-related terms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
From the Classroom to the Courtoom: Be Proactive About Lawyer AI Competence<\/h2>\n
The classroom now surpasses the courtroom in AI awareness. Lawyers facing discipline today are being punished for mistakes that the next generation might never make \u2014 or at least shouldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Until that future arrives, it\u2019s your responsibility to be your own AI ethics instructor. Because when the next disciplinary complaint happens, \u201cI thought ChatGPT was right\u201d won\u2019t be a valid excuse for a lack of AI competence.<\/p>\n
Michael C. Maschke<\/em><\/strong> is President and Chief Executive Officer of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. He is an EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE), Certified Computer Examiner (CCE #744), AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE), Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP). He is a frequent speaker on IT, cybersecurity and digital forensics, and he has co-authored 14 books published by the American Bar Association. mmaschke@senseient.com.<\/em><\/p>\n
Sharon D. Nelson<\/em><\/strong> is the co-founder of and a consultant to Sensei Enterprises. She is a past president of the Virginia State Bar, the Fairfax Bar Association and the Fairfax Law Foundation. She is a co-author of 18 books published by the ABA. snelson@senseient.com<\/em><\/p>\n
John W. Simek<\/em><\/strong> is the co-founder of and a consultant to Sensei Enterprises. He holds multiple technical certifications and is a nationally known digital forensics expert. He is a co-author of 18 books published by the American Bar Association. jsimek@senseient.com<\/em><\/p>\n
More About Lawyer AI Competency on Attorney at Work<\/h2>\n
- \n
- 5 Essential Questions Every Lawyer Should Ask Before Using AI Tools<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n
- Should You Be \u2018Vibe Lawyering\u2019 with Generative AI?<\/strong><\/a> (Listen)<\/li>\n
- From Fear to Functionality: How Lawyers Can Ethically Integrate AI into Their Practice<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n
- Richard Susskind on AI for Lawyers: A Review of \u2018How to Think About AI\u2019<\/strong><\/a> (Listen)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Subscribe to Attorney at Work<\/h2>\n
- Should You Be \u2018Vibe Lawyering\u2019 with Generative AI?<\/strong><\/a> (Listen)<\/li>\n
- 5 Essential Questions Every Lawyer Should Ask Before Using AI Tools<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n
- 2. The AI Brief Fine (Lindell\u2019s Attorneys)<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n