{"id":164169,"date":"2026-10-01T13:44:01","date_gmt":"2026-10-01T21:44:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/10\/01\/ai-and-experts-and-hallucinations-oh-my\/"},"modified":"2026-10-01T13:44:01","modified_gmt":"2026-10-01T21:44:01","slug":"ai-and-experts-and-hallucinations-oh-my","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/10\/01\/ai-and-experts-and-hallucinations-oh-my\/","title":{"rendered":"AI, And Experts, And Hallucinations, Oh My!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

If you\u2019ve been paying attention, you know that AI is impacting litigation at a record pace. No stage of court proceedings has been immune from the sometimes careless \u2014 and very rapid rate of \u2014 AI adoption in our profession. From the initial pleadings to trial and every step in between, litigants are indiscriminately relying on AI, often to the detriment of both their law licenses and the justice system overall.<\/p>\n

For example, prompt injections have entered the courtroom<\/a>. There have been recent instances where AI prompts were hidden in court filings, sometimes with the intent to influence case outcomes. This trend is creating a new and unfamiliar challenge for already overburdened judges and their staff. \u00a0<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, courts have been besieged with AI-generated documents<\/a>, many of which have increasingly been filed by pro se<\/em> litigants. AI has empowered self-represented plaintiffs, enabling them to draft lengthy, but often error-ridden documents. Sifting through the piles of hallucination-laden papers has dramatically impacted the efficient administration of justice. <\/p>\n

Evidence manufactured with AI<\/a> is another emerging problem faced in courtrooms across the country. Litigants are using AI to create falsified documents, text messages, photos, and more, and judges are grappling with the fallout. Because AI-generated fake evidence can be incredibly realistic, the failure to properly screen and verify proposed evidence can lead to unreliable and unjust court outcomes.<\/p>\n

Another key area where AI complications are regularly impacting trials involves experts. Two recent cases show how expert witnesses are using AI to assist in forming their opinions and drafting their reports, and how courts are addressing the significant issues cropping up as a result.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For example, in August, in a case<\/a> pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, the plaintiff\u2019s attorney drafted an expert\u2019s report using AI that included a citation table in the appendix. It had been drafted by Claude and contained multiple references to hallucinated academic articles. The expert who signed the report failed to notice the errors before it was submitted to the court.<\/p>\n

The defendants moved to exclude the expert\u2019s opinions, asserting that his conclusions were unreliable and based on fabricated data. The court agreed, ruling that \u201cthe hallucinated citations undermine Dr. Holguin\u2019s entire report and that the report is not reliable under Daubert<\/em>.\u201d The court explained that the attorney\u2019s role in using AI to draft the source materials relied on by Holguin, along with his \u201clack of diligence in verifying the sources that he represented were the basis for his opinion,\u201d prevented the plaintiff from meeting her burden, warranting the exclusion of his expert testimony.<\/p>\n

More recently, in a United States District Court, District of Nevada matter<\/a>, a different issue arose when an expert used AI. In this case, the plaintiff\u2019s expert disclosed during his deposition that he\u2019d used AI to assist in preparing his report. Specifically, it had helped to improve his grammar and sentence structure.\u00a0<\/p>\n

His AI usage, which at first glance appeared fairly benign, ultimately became a sticking point two months later when, on the final day of the discovery period, defense counsel filed a motion to reopen the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline and extend the discovery cutoff date. He sought additional time to locate his own expert who could provide insight into whether the plaintiff\u2019s expert had relied on AI more substantively than he\u2019d claimed. The court declined to grant the extension, concluding that \u201cthe failure to seek relief for two months shows that Defendant was not diligent.\u201d<\/p>\n

Both of these cases exemplify how AI tools are changing experts\u2019 workflows and adding to the complexity of litigation matters. In addition to slowing down the progression of cases through the court system, they\u2019re also impacting litigation strategy, requiring trial lawyers to understand not only AI but also how their experts are incorporating AI into their analysis. And, as the Nevada case shows, timing matters, too; questions about AI use should be raised promptly.<\/p>\n

There are broader consequences, too. Each invented authority, manipulated exhibit, or concealed instruction adds confusion and slows down the wheels of justice. These challenges often outweigh the convenience of generating material in seconds, as lawyers and judges spend hours confirming accuracy and determining trustworthiness. <\/p>\n

While the technology is new, the duty to understand how it works is not. As AI becomes a fixture in litigation, the time and effort needed to manage its effects will only grow. Lawyers who use these tools carelessly, or fail to ensure appropriate use by others involved in a case, risk compromising their clients\u2019 positions and placing further demands on an already overburdened system.<\/p>\n

\n

Nicole Black<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0is a Rochester, New York attorney and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>8am<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, the team behind 8am MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise. She\u2019s been\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>blogging<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0since 2005, has written a\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>weekly column<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Cloud Computing for Lawyers<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, co-authors\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, and co-authors\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Criminal Law in New York<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. She\u2019s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>@nikiblack<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and she can be reached at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>niki.black@mycase.com<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The post AI, And Experts, And Hallucinations, Oh My!<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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

If you\u2019ve been paying attention, you know that AI is impacting litigation at a record pace. No stage of court proceedings has been immune from the sometimes careless \u2014 and very rapid rate of \u2014 AI adoption in our profession. From the initial pleadings to trial and every step in between, litigants are indiscriminately relying on AI, often to the detriment of both their law licenses and the justice system overall.<\/p>\n

For example, prompt injections have entered the courtroom<\/a>. There have been recent instances where AI prompts were hidden in court filings, sometimes with the intent to influence case outcomes. This trend is creating a new and unfamiliar challenge for already overburdened judges and their staff. \u00a0<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, courts have been besieged with AI-generated documents<\/a>, many of which have increasingly been filed by pro se<\/em> litigants. AI has empowered self-represented plaintiffs, enabling them to draft lengthy, but often error-ridden documents. Sifting through the piles of hallucination-laden papers has dramatically impacted the efficient administration of justice. <\/p>\n

Evidence manufactured with AI<\/a> is another emerging problem faced in courtrooms across the country. Litigants are using AI to create falsified documents, text messages, photos, and more, and judges are grappling with the fallout. Because AI-generated fake evidence can be incredibly realistic, the failure to properly screen and verify proposed evidence can lead to unreliable and unjust court outcomes.<\/p>\n

Another key area where AI complications are regularly impacting trials involves experts. Two recent cases show how expert witnesses are using AI to assist in forming their opinions and drafting their reports, and how courts are addressing the significant issues cropping up as a result.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For example, in August, in a case<\/a> pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, the plaintiff\u2019s attorney drafted an expert\u2019s report using AI that included a citation table in the appendix. It had been drafted by Claude and contained multiple references to hallucinated academic articles. The expert who signed the report failed to notice the errors before it was submitted to the court.<\/p>\n

The defendants moved to exclude the expert\u2019s opinions, asserting that his conclusions were unreliable and based on fabricated data. The court agreed, ruling that \u201cthe hallucinated citations undermine Dr. Holguin\u2019s entire report and that the report is not reliable under Daubert<\/em>.\u201d The court explained that the attorney\u2019s role in using AI to draft the source materials relied on by Holguin, along with his \u201clack of diligence in verifying the sources that he represented were the basis for his opinion,\u201d prevented the plaintiff from meeting her burden, warranting the exclusion of his expert testimony.<\/p>\n

More recently, in a United States District Court, District of Nevada matter<\/a>, a different issue arose when an expert used AI. In this case, the plaintiff\u2019s expert disclosed during his deposition that he\u2019d used AI to assist in preparing his report. Specifically, it had helped to improve his grammar and sentence structure.\u00a0<\/p>\n

His AI usage, which at first glance appeared fairly benign, ultimately became a sticking point two months later when, on the final day of the discovery period, defense counsel filed a motion to reopen the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline and extend the discovery cutoff date. He sought additional time to locate his own expert who could provide insight into whether the plaintiff\u2019s expert had relied on AI more substantively than he\u2019d claimed. The court declined to grant the extension, concluding that \u201cthe failure to seek relief for two months shows that Defendant was not diligent.\u201d<\/p>\n

Both of these cases exemplify how AI tools are changing experts\u2019 workflows and adding to the complexity of litigation matters. In addition to slowing down the progression of cases through the court system, they\u2019re also impacting litigation strategy, requiring trial lawyers to understand not only AI but also how their experts are incorporating AI into their analysis. And, as the Nevada case shows, timing matters, too; questions about AI use should be raised promptly.<\/p>\n

There are broader consequences, too. Each invented authority, manipulated exhibit, or concealed instruction adds confusion and slows down the wheels of justice. These challenges often outweigh the convenience of generating material in seconds, as lawyers and judges spend hours confirming accuracy and determining trustworthiness. <\/p>\n

While the technology is new, the duty to understand how it works is not. As AI becomes a fixture in litigation, the time and effort needed to manage its effects will only grow. Lawyers who use these tools carelessly, or fail to ensure appropriate use by others involved in a case, risk compromising their clients\u2019 positions and placing further demands on an already overburdened system.<\/p>\n

\n

Nicole Black<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0is a Rochester, New York attorney and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>8am<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, the team behind 8am MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise. She\u2019s been\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>blogging<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0since 2005, has written a\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>weekly column<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Cloud Computing for Lawyers<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, co-authors\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, and co-authors\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Criminal Law in New York<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. She\u2019s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>@nikiblack<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and she can be reached at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>[email\u00a0protected]<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you\u2019ve been paying attention, you know that AI is impacting litigation at a record pace. No stage of court proceedings has been immune from the sometimes careless \u2014 and very rapid rate of \u2014 AI adoption in our profession. From the initial pleadings to trial and every step in between, litigants are indiscriminately relying […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":164140,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164169","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=164169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164169\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/164140"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}