As Cimplifi discusses in this post, many cautionary tales regarding AI hallucinations illustrate the lawyer’s ethical duty to verify work product.

In their latest post titled (wait for it!) Stepping Up to the Plate: AI Hallucinations and the Lawyer’s Ethical Duty to Verify (available here), Cimplifi discusses a few examples of a few recent cautionary tales associated with AI hallucinations in case filings that makes you wonder “what were they thinking?” Here’s one of them:

After finding “over two dozen fake citations and misrepresentations of fact in” briefs filed by two attorneys for their client, those attorneys accused the Court of “engaging in a vast conspiracy to harass them”. They received numerous sanctions, including reimbursement of reasonable attorneys’ fees, paying double costs to appellees for costs incurred, paying $15,000 each to the registry of the court as punitive sanctions, and consideration of disciplinary proceedings.

So, what really are hallucinations and how should you manage them? And what’s the difference between general purpose AI and purpose-built AI? Find out here, it’s only one click! You can’t verify the info without clicking! 😉

So, what do you think? Is your organization applying best practices for AI ethics and defensibility in legal practice? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using DALL-E 3, using the term “robot batter stepping up to the plate with a robot catcher and a robot umpire behind the plate with fans in the stands behind them”.

Disclosure: Cimplifi is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.