How to Navigate the Complexities of Using AI in Court Pleadings for Legal Professionals
- Susan M. Signer
- 4 days ago
- 4 min read
Navigate the Complexities of Using AI in Court Pleadings
Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the way attorneys prepare legal documents and perform legal research. One key area of focus is how AI-Generated tools are used in court pleadings. As attorneys, law firms face new challenges for obtaining legal research and case law. . It is critical to comprehend the distinctions and potential consequences of using AI, such as hallucinations of case citations. AI “hallucinations” are the generation of false or fabricated case citations, case precedence, invented case law, and erroneous factual assertions. This blog post serves as a resource to help you address AI complexities in the legal community.
Understanding AI in Court Pleadings
AI in the legal sector refers to software tools that use machine learning and natural language processing to assist legal professionals in preparing legal documents and pleadings. For instance, while AI tools can quickly analyze legal documents, retrieve relevant case law, and even suggest specific wording for pleadings, you cannot rely 100% upon AI tools as a final product. An attorney is responsible for verifying the case law, precedence references, and facts presented prior to filing a pleading with the Court. A study by the American Bar Association found that around 35% of lawyers now use some form of AI to improve efficiency.
Despite these advantages, concerns about the accuracy and trustworthiness of AI-generated content are valid. While AI can handle information rapidly, it may miss the intricacies of legal principles that experienced attorneys comprehend. This gap can lead to hallucination case reference errors in court filings, potentially affecting case outcomes. Legal professionals must ensure all AI-generated documents are carefully reviewed for accuracy and compliance before they are submitted.
Ethical Considerations
Using AI in court pleadings raises important ethical questions. Legal professionals have a responsibility to maintain the legal system's integrity. If an AI tool produces an hallucination reference errors in a pleading, it raises issues around liability and subject to possible sanctions.
For example, an erroneous pleading could lead to a client's case being dismissed or a criminal defendant to be found not guilty. In a recent case, The Guardian reported on 30 May 2025 that a Utah Court of Appeals Court sanctioned a lawyer for referencing a nonexistent Court case after it was discovered he used ChatGPT.
In a Law360 Pulse AI Survey, "Nearly 70% of attorneys said one of the positive effects from generative AI is increased efficiency in administrative tasks, according to the report."
The Law360 Pulse AI Survey also stated that, "Most attorneys – 79% – are concerned about generative AI's imperfect understanding of legal ethics and standards, about the same percentage as last year – 76%."
Additionally, attorneys must be proactive in addressing AI hallucination bias by utilizing varied datasets for training AI systems and conducting verification of information to ensure AI outputs do not reflect any form of discrimination.
In 2023, MIT Management addressed AI hallucinations and pointed out that, in Mata v. Avianca, Inc., Case Number 1:2022cv01461-Document 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), a New York attorney used ChatGPT for his legal research in a client's personal injury case. The presiding Federal Judge noticed that the attorney's opinion contained nonexistent internal citations and quotes. To boot, the chatbot stipulated that the citations and quotes were available in major legal databases (Weiser, 2023).
Best Practices for Implementing AI in Court Pleadings
To effectively navigate AI's complexities in court pleadings, legal professionals should consider the following best practices:
1. Thoroughly Review AI-Generated Content
Always conduct a detailed review of AI-generated pleadings before submission. Focus on verifying the accuracy, relevance, and observance to the sources and evidence relied upon for a case. Thoroughly reviewing AI-Generated legal content is crucial. One false AI hallucination could be detrimental to the outcome of a case.
2. Maintain Human Oversight
AI is not a replacement for an attorney. Relying on AI should be limited to using AI as a supplementary tool. Oversight of the AI-Generated legal documents by attorneys will ensure the final product aligns with the attorney's understanding of the case.
3. Stay Informed About AI Developments
AI-Generated content is rapidly evolving, and learning. Attorneys remaining current on AI is imperative. To keep up to date on AI technology, attorneys and legal staff should attend CLE courses and seminars to remain current on ethical standards and the latest in AI technology.
4. Collaborate with Tech Experts
Collaborate with AI technology professionals who understand the implications of AI-Generated legal documents. Fully understanding AI-Generated tools ensures that attorneys fully grasp how to use AI and what the AI tools can do ethically for their legal practice.
5. Educate Clients
When using AI in cases, take the time to explain to your clients the advantages of using AI-Generated tool and the impact that AI may have on their case. Ethically, an attorney must explain to the client the advantages and disadvantages of using AI in Court pleadings. Keep your client informed by being transparent, to ensure the attorney-client relationship is built on trust.
The Future of AI in Court Pleadings
As AI technology evolves, the role of AI-Generated pleadings in court filings is likely to grow as well. If lawyers maintain ethical standards, we anticipate AI’s new learning and adaptability will increase the likelihood of more attorneys using AI-Generated tools to supplement their legal research, briefs, and pleadings.
AI has its place in legal documents. No matter how great AI becomes, lawyers will always be needed to ensure equality and justice are served.
Final Thoughts
To effectively use AI-Generated tools, attorneys and law firms must address the challenges of using AI when preparing legal documents. Attorneys and law firms should ensure ethical obligations are adhered to and innovation is properly balanced. Do not rely solely on AI-Generated legal documents as fact. You must take the time to verify the authenticity of the legal citations and precedence set forth by AI-Generated documents. Hence, attorneys will always be needed in the legal profession.
What are your thoughts on AI-Generated tools in the Courtrooms? Leave a comment in the comment section or you may find me on LinkedIn.
Susan M Signer Services provides consultancy solutions and paralegal services to law firms.
Comentarios