Don’t Risk Your Reputation by Gambling with Gen AI

Nobody Wins When Lawyers Recklessly Disregard Rule 3.3

According to a study published last summer by Stanford University, nearly three quarters of lawyers plan on using Generative AI for their work. The study reported that general purpose chatbots hallucinate between 58% and 82% of the time on legal queries. Even tailored legal AI tools such as Lexis+AI and Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Practical Law AI are not infallible. In the Stanford study, the Ask Practical Law AI systems produced incorrect information more than 17% of the time, while Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research hallucinated more than 34% of the time.

While most of us remain curious yet cautious about using Gen AI to fast-track our legal research, dozens of recent cases serve as a reminder that competence, diligence, and candor are still our ethical obligations.

One of the early cases was Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., in which a lawyer was sanctioned for submitting unverified Gen AI content in response to a motion for summary judgment. No. 1:23-CV-281 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024). This included two citations to completely fabricated cases and nonexistent quotations from seven actual cases. In other words, Gen AI hallucinated, which meant false or misleading information was provided, unverified, and then presented as facts.

In sanctioning the lawyer, the court determined that the lawyer submitted a false statement of law to the court and failed to rectify the mistake after opposing counsel pointed it out in their reply. The lawyer did not address the error until the court issued a show-cause order. The court also remarked that “it is unclear what legal research, if any,” the lawyer conducted before filing the response. The lawyer in the Gauthier case was ordered to pay $2,000 into the court registry, to take one hour of CLE on the topic of Gen AI in the legal field, and to provide his client with a copy of the sanctions order.

Just this month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona imposed strong penalties for fake citations in a social security disability case against a lawyer licensed in Washington state, revoking her pro hac vice status, removing her as counsel for her client, striking her brief, ordering apology letters to the judges to whom she attributed false cases, ordering the lawyer to send the order to the Washington State Bar Association for action, and ordering her to send the sanctions order to the judge in every case in which she is attorney of record. Mavy v. Comm’r, No. CV-25-00689-PHX-KML (ASB) (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2025).

The court in Hall v. The Academy Charter School, 2:24-cv-08630-JMW (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2025), took a gentler approach, imposing no monetary sanction and directing counsel to provide a copy of his order to her client, in a case where counsel submitted three Google-hallucinated cases. The court found persuasive the lawyer’s explanation, involving the tragic personal circumstance of her husband’s recent death at a young age. The lawyer took steps to seek mental health help and bereavement leave and her opposing counsel stipulated to her voluntary dismissal of one claim in the suit.

Rule 3.3 of Alabama’s Rules of Professional Conduct reminds us of our duty of Candor Towards the Tribunal:

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

(2) Fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; or

(3) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.

Remember, too, that Rule of Professional Conduct 5.2 requires the supervision of a subordinate lawyer’s work. Any use of generated results from AI requires oversight by the lawyer who typed in the inquiry or requested her subordinate co-worker to do so.

And, in addition to the ethical rules, submitting false citations may also violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act.

We all know how it feels to be overwhelmed with personal and professional demands. But having too much on your plate is no excuse for carelessness. And there’s no such thing as a quick fix without consequences. Shoddy work will be noticed eventually, resulting in financial, professional and reputational costs for lawyers and their firms.

Think of Gen AI results as a first draft to be reviewed, verified and approved before it is shared with the client, opposing counsel or the court. The best advice is to cite check and read the cases you cite, just like in the old days.