In February 2025, the firm of Morgan & Morgan was sanctioned by a federal court judge for using AI-Generated “fake cases” in a court filing. Specifically, they cited to eight non-existent cases in motions filed with the court. Ya think Homer Simpson was in their office when they got that order and just kept hitting his head and saying “D’oh” repeatedly.
Look. Lawyers have an obligation to check sources. In fact, there are a bunch of rules relating to the use of case law in briefs filed with the court. These rules range from how cases are to be cited to having to provide contrarian cases if you use unpublished decisions. There are even more of those pesky ethics rules that require candor toward the court, blah, blah. What’s crazy about the case is that lawyers are highly trained researchers, who spend three years in law school learning how to evaluate case law and sources. So maybe lawyers just suck at AI?
These days I do a fair amount of work consulting with pro se (self-represented) litigants. I enjoy it tremendously. Some people want to retain control of their case and make their own arguments, but they need help with the mechanics. I love the mechanics and hate going to court so it’s a win-win. I also love reading case law and doing research.
I recently took a case where the litigant had drafted a brief using AI. He cited to cases that actually exist…. but… the quotes that AI gave him from the cases did not. After losing at the trial court, he took an appeal. Notably, the trial judge just ripped him over the case cites. He reached out to me for help in drafting the appellate brief. He also knows that I am writing this blog and using his story, by the way, and I repeatedly poke fun at him for his “la AI aux folles” quotes. I suggested that he squarely address the 800-ton gorilla in the room with a footnote on page one of the appellate brief. I also tossed his AI generated brief and did the hard work of actually researching the case law and drafting a legal argument that was based on actual law and real quotes from real cases. Guess what… the law was on his side anyway.
No doubt that there is a value to AI, but it is not in legal work unless you know how to properly analyze the law already and frankly unless you actually check every source and every quote. Lawyers are already getting beaten down by judges for submitting quotes and cases that either don’t exist or don’t say what AI spit out. Remember, the output is driven by the command input and if you ask for “A legal brief with cases that support the proposition that elephants can fly without a feather” AI is going to just make that shit up for you. Spoiler: If that brief contains a case captioned “Dumbo v. Crow” throw it out.
If you are thinking about writing a legal brief and you are an attorney or self-represented litigant – Don’t fucking use AI. Just don’t do it. If lawyers are messing up and quoting non-existent cases, imagine how hard it will be for you to properly evaluate the AI. While I appreciate that you think it can be helpful, it ultimately does more harm to your client’s case – or your case if you are pro se, and may well be a place from which you cannot recover before the judge. Once a judge thinks you are lying, that will be something impossible to overcome. Lawyers know this as falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
But if you decide to ignore my advice and do it anyway, here are the steps that you need to follow to make sure that you aren’t submitting AI “hallucinations” in legal filings:
- Cut and paste the citation into any web browser and google it. I made up and googled “Elephant v. United Airlines.” Guess what… the case doesn’t exist. How do I know that? There are a number of online resources where you can find case law for free. Casetext.com, Justia, and a few other websites provide access to cases. The dirty secret is that all case law is in the public domain, so it’s somewhere online if it’s real.
- If the case does exist – READ IT. Now you know why lawyers make the big bucks. Trust me reading case law is about as exciting as watching golf. In the appellate brief I mentioned above I ended up having to read and synthesize over 1000 pages of case law. Don’t want to do that? Hire a lawyer. Are you a lawyer that doesn’t want to do that? Hire another lawyer to do it for you. If the case exists, but the quote AI gave you is not actually in the case – Don’t fucking use it!
- Find a case that actually says what you want to say and borrow heavily from that case and put the citation of the case at the end of every sentence. Guess what, this is what lawyers do. You can (and should) copy from cases that help your argument. I’m not giving away any special recipe here. This is what lawyers do all day (or at least this is what we are supposed to do). The reason why self-represented people don’t do this is because it’s harder than I made it sound. Determining how much is too much is tough. But the actual argument part of tying the case law to the facts of your case is where the magic happens. It is hard and it is an art. In the end you have to decide, as a pro se, if it is worth it to spend the money to hire help or roll the dice with Cyberdyne Systems Model 101. That guy was no friend of humans (I’m just saying).
- Find a lawyer that will just write the damn brief for you. This advice is for lawyers and pro se/self-represented peeps alike. I do this work. There are other lawyers that just do this type of work. For people like me who are skilled at research and writing, this is actually fun stuff to do. For lawyers and non-lawyers who don’t like to do this it is the equivalent of having your eyelashes plucked. Know your strengths and delegate. There is a way to retain control of the case and get help. But if you are a lawyer, make sure you hire someone trustworthy or check the citations yourself. At least two of the attorneys in the Morgan case just signed the documents and didn’t read them. That’s like cross-the-streams bad.
Initially, I wasn’t crazy about AI, but lately I have grown to love it. It is making me money by bringing me cases where I have to fix what AI f*cked up. In all seriousness, please make sure that you don’t blindly rely on AI. This is especially true at the appeals level of any litigation. Some law clerk is going to be tasked with looking up every single case that you cite to. If you are foiled by AI, the result could be monetary sanctions or worse. If your case is dismissed you could lose custody of a child, legal rights to property, or a large payout on a civil case. It’s just bad.
Amy works with lawyers and self-represents litigants on various aspects of litigation, including appeals. She has handled over 100 appeals and written hundreds of briefs. If you have an appeal or need assisting with drafting a brief, schedule a consultation or email her with information.
