Artificial intelligence is coming for our jobs – we know it.
In 2024, computer programmers at DeepMind won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for developing AI to predict protein folding. If AI advanced enough to simulate protein folding (and allow programmers to win the world’s biggest chemistry prize) has arrived, is the law more complicated? Why should lawyers spend time learning different facets of the law to draft briefs or contracts, when they can use AI?
Besides, why should anyone pay for legal services when they have access to AI? The speed with which the AI has grasped the persuasive writing style is impressive. This was enough to convince lawyers and professional candidates to aggressively adopt the technology.
The main reason lawyers and their clients should hesitate before adopting AI is AI’s spectacular ability to mask a false quote with an air of legitimacy (we call this “hallucinations” because AI lacks the awareness to falsify quotes). Fabricated citations or poorly stated legal precedents require searching to spot, often coming from an amalgamation of information captured by AI.
Damien Charlotin, a French lawyer, compiled a global list of court rulings in which judges chastised a party for using generative AI in their court cases. Collected over the past 30 months, the list contains more than 750 cases in which a court found records containing AI-produced hallucinations. And the hallucinations increase exponentially. November 2023 had four such cases, November 2024, 7 cases, and November 2025, 98 cases. No New Hampshire offenders were identified in the issued orders, although one incident was documented this year. The first offender arrested is probably not the first offender in the Granite State and certainly not the last.
It therefore seems that the judges have given up. For lawyers, disciplinary measures range from public humiliation and verbal reprimands to monetary fines, bar referrals, dismissal of charges, and other sanctions. The American Bar Association advised in 2024 that AI is unreliable and that lawyers who rely on AI work without independent review may be violating their ethical duty to provide competent representation.
For clients, adverse findings regarding AI use have led to records being expunged or the case dismissed with prejudice, significantly changing the course of litigation against the AI adopter. These hallucinations are spotted because the quotes are reviewed by judges and opposing lawyers.
Of course, lawyers draft many agreements, documents, and records that receive far less scrutiny; who knows how many legal documents circulate outside of court with false information or inappropriate language that could harm the document if challenged in the future.
Outside of the courts, Amnesty International’s main promise is more effective law practice. This promise means something different to lawyers and to clients. For lawyers, this should mean processing more cases more quickly. For customers, this should mean lower bills. Unfortunately, the preliminary figures are not encouraging. An Axiom Law study found that among law firms actively using AI, 6% charged less for AI-assisted work, while 34% charged more for AI-assisted work. Thus, AI is not yet delivering on its most desired promise by customers.
Is it time to rely on AI for legal work?
Circuit Judge Newsom of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote a 29-page concurring opinion encouraging the integration of AI for the analysis of what the “plain meaning” of the word “landscaping” should be. Thus, at least some members of the legal profession, including judges, view AI as benefiting legal analysis today, when used in the right circumstances.
For lawyers, cost-benefit analysis involves determining whether you have the resources and time to double (or triple) check every citation and legal interpretation in any court filing or other work to ensure that you are not next on Mr. Charlotin’s list.
For clients hiring legal counsel, it’s worth asking who is handling your work: whether the work is being done by an associate, associate, paralegal, or RN. You may determine that the value of a service should change if ChatGPT drafts your legal documents.
Todd Sullivan is Managing Partner at Hayes Soloway PC and was recently recognized as one of New Hampshire’s Top Patent Lawyers. Colin Dean is a patent attorney at Hayes Soloway PC and has a degree in chemistry.