Sixth Circuit Sanctions Lawyer Over AI-Generated Briefs

• A court-appointed defense lawyer was sanctioned over AI-generated briefs containing an incorrect quote.
• The Sixth Circuit's decision highlights the risks of relying on AI-generated briefs and the importance of proper legal research.
• Using AI tools to retrieve relevant cases can help avoid hallucinations and ensure accurate legal advice.

The answer is structural, and it's a simple structure that you are already familiar with because it's how you approach legal research with brand new lawyers. Don't ask your AI to 'tell' you the answers to your legal question; ask it to 'show' you the cases (with the relevant parts highlighted).

A court-appointed defense lawyer in the Sixth Circuit was sanctioned over two appellate briefs drafted with the help of a 'trusted legal technology provider.' The briefs contained an incorrect quote rather than a fabricated case, but this did not impress the court. The lawyer had practiced for 40 years without discipline and admitted the error immediately, but was denied compensation, removed from the case, and referred to the Chief Judge and the Kentucky bar. This incident highlights the risks of relying on AI-generated briefs and the importance of proper legal research.

The use of AI in legal research has become increasingly prevalent, with many lawyers relying on these tools to generate briefs and other documents. However, this reliance can lead to 'hallucinations' - incorrect or fabricated information that is presented as fact. This can have serious consequences, including sanctions and damage to a lawyer's reputation. The Sixth Circuit's decision in United States v. Farris serves as a warning to lawyers about the risks of relying on AI-generated briefs.

The incident in United States v. Farris highlights the need for lawyers to use AI tools responsibly and to verify the accuracy of the information they provide. This can be achieved by using AI tools that retrieve relevant cases and present them in full, rather than generating new content. By taking this approach, lawyers can avoid the risks associated with hallucinations and ensure that their clients receive accurate and reliable legal advice.

Lawyers should use AI to 'show' relevant cases, not 'tell' answers, to avoid hallucination risks and save time in case law retrieval.

Source: Original reporting via a leading industry publication