I asked Horace Middlemier* to proofread this one. He thought I was being a little hard on various news-making attorneys and others. In the spirit of compromise, this post has been pre-censored to assuage lawyers' feelings everywhere.
Al Yankovic released a parody, Another One Rides the Bus (Beechwood Music, 1980). Lamenting the crowded city bus, he complained that at stop after stop,
And another comes on,And another comes on,Another one rides the bus.
The bus became crowded and uncomfortable. It was a take off on the Queen classic, Another One Bites the Dust (EMI, 1980), whose more violent lyrics had victims biting "the dust" rather than "riding the bus." Each is a sound metaphorical reference to accumulation of population.
The topic of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is back in the news; old news that is. In Plagiarism Now (February 2025), I noted that there are broad concerns about its shortcomings in the field of legal practice:
Everyone is now familiar with the hapless attorneys using AI ignorantly and lazily. They ask a large language model (LLM) to prepare a brief or memo, count on its candor and care, sign that creation, and file it with some court. They have done so ignorantly and trustingly, mistakenly and recklessly, regrettably and repeatedly. The many news stories of discipline mean no attorney can credibly express ignorance any longer.
I was so wrong.
Various professionals have found their path to Andy Warhol's promised Valhalla of fifteen minutes of infamy. He said everyone is famous for an instant. How? From simply disrobing to scandalous product placement to irrational rants, people have done various questionable things in search of their 15 minutes in the internet age.
The internet facilitates it, social media enables it, and our dopamine demands drive it. Ask,com published a list of questionable human tricks, but there have also been doughnut lickers, bad intriguing tattoos, questionable wardrobes, and more. The New Yorker noted that, "on the internet, we're always famous." As much as you may want to "go viral," do you want to be a meme?
In fairness, that is not a kind meme. As Horace suggested, no one is actually "stupid," that is just a pejorative; some of us merely make poor decisions sometimes, in the moment.
Nonetheless, there was a flash in the pan in 2023 with the filing of false and misleading information in court proceedings. The (mal)practice knew no categorization, lawyers new and experienced, big firms and small, asked computer programs to build them legal documents. See AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023); Mamma Always Said (June 2023). Some speculated it was novelty, others felt lawyers wanted a shortcut, and others still were not as kind.
The news reports have been persistent. I have used Forrest Gump (Paramount, 1994 "stupid is as stupid does"), Dumb and Dumber (Universal, 1994, "According To The Map, We've Only Gone 4 Inches!"), and more to try to illustrate the fallacy and naivete of relying on AI for legal research. That has perhaps resonated with a few readers. Maybe my repetition here has saved a soul or two from complacency and embarrassment. Or, perhaps I have offended - apologies if I have hurt feelings with these observations on the fallaciousness of relying on the AI for these tasks.
What is needed is for the perils of AI to "go viral" because apparently, there remain many lawyers who have not noticed the dangers or simply do not care.
All this leads up to the recent report by Business Insider, noting that "AI hallucinations in court documents are a growing problem." Thus, the news coverage is not driving improvement. The problem and practice are growing, not contracting. Some might ask a lawyer filing hallucinated authority in 2025, "how did you not know?" "What planet have you been vacationing on over the last two years?" There are educated, sophisticated lawyers who are continuing to cite AI-generated authority, despite the various news, warnings, and sanctions.
A gentleman has now "created a public database of 120 cases in which courts found that AI hallucinated quotes, created fake cases, or cited other apparent legal authorities that didn't exist." Business Insider notes that these are the instances in which a judge or opposing party has discovered the misrepresentations. So, perhaps there are more instances?
Notably, that is not a very nice word, "misrepresentation," but as Walt Whitman noted, "simplicity is the glory of expression." See Workers' Compensation Misrepresentation Defense (February 2017); Candor to the Tribunal and Misrepresentation (April 2018); Sanctions (January 2023); Disuse Atrophy (December 2024). Imagine being found guilty of a felony for telling an untruth or providing "incomplete, or misleading information?" Section 440.105(4)(b), Florida Statutes.
There are two small solaces in perceptions of the new database: not all the uninformed lawyering is in the United States, and not all involves lawyers. There are examples cited in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Great Britain, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, and even South Africa. But the vast majority are here in the U.S., scattered among various state and federal courts. They are of varying degrees, extent, and situation. But, all are regrettable at best.
Business Insurance says that there are many "mistakes" and, in truth, we all make mistakes. But there is support to conclude that the prevalence of attorney misrepresentations is increasing. The amount of publicity should be working this in the other direction (decreasing). Seriously, how did you not know to check the citations in your filing? what planet have you been vacationing on? To be clear, it is not a clear defense to say "my client would not pay me for the legal research that was needed."
Simple truths:
AI tools (LLMs) are not databases.
AI tools tend to rely on the most popular websites (Wikis lead most search results, and anyone can create and edit wiki entries).
AI hallucinates (makes things up).
You simply cannot rely on Artificial Intelligence to perform legal research or draft legal arguments. Use them for inspiration? for revisions? for suggestions? certainly. But using them for research and drafting is beyond dangerous. If you do, you must independently, personally (it is not a defense that the cites came from your paralegal, associate, partner, neighbor, etc.), check each case:
- Is the citation correct - an actual case, at the volume and page cited, an actual statute in the code at the noted reference?
- Does the cited material actually say what your filing says it says (quotes)?
- Does the cited authority stand for the proposition you portray?
- Has the authority been questioned, impugned, overruled, or superseded?
What a pain, right? But that is what lawyering is. It is details. It is skilled. It is human. And it requires patience, focus, and attention.
Courts are imposing sanctions. Lawyers have been fined and even suspended. I believe a disbarment is coming. I don't know where, when, or more, but it is coming. Some lawyer is going go permanently be relieved of their license to practice. With each story that is published, it will become increasingly difficult to attribute hallucinated citations, authorities, and arguments to anything except sloth (sorry, Horace, but that particular word uniquely describes the danger).
The BI article concludes: "Cases of lawyers or litigants that have mistakenly cited hallucinated cases has (sic) now become a rather common trope." Each lawyer must choose whether to sacrifice their credibility and name on the altar of expediency and sloth. For some reason, brother Bluto comes back to mind: "Seven years of college down the drain" (Animal House, 1978). It is something to think about.]
And another comes on,And another comes on,Another one rides the bus.
If you want to be internet famous, lick a donut instead. It is just as silly, but it is less permanent than a tattoo, and the path back is far more expedient.
A compendium of my previous AI posts is on my website: https://dwlangham.com/blog-compilations
*Horace Middlemeir is not a real person, but a literary trope. Any resemblance to any real person, living or dead, is coincidental and unintentional. In this instance, the suggestions came from an everyman perspective and were welcomed feedback.
