Generative AI tools can produce fluent, confident legal text, and some of it is wrong. The problem is not that the tools are useless, but that errors read exactly like correct answers. Reported incidents in which lawyers filed briefs containing nonexistent case citations generated by AI have led to court sanctions, and have made the topic impossible for firms to ignore.
ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued in July 2024, discusses lawyers' competence duties when using generative AI and emphasizes the need to review and verify outputs. This post offers a concrete workflow that a firm can adopt. It is not legal advice, and local court rules and ethics guidance may add requirements.
What goes wrong
Common failure modes include:
- Fabricated citations: Cases, statutes or quotes that look plausible but do not exist
- Real case, wrong proposition: The citation is genuine but does not say what the tool claims
- Outdated law: A case that has been overruled or a statute that was amended
- Wrong jurisdiction: Authority from another state or circuit presented as controlling
- Subtle misstatements: Accurate facts mixed with an invented detail
- Overconfidence: Fluent answers to questions the tool cannot actually answer
Tools designed for legal research, which retrieve from curated sources, may reduce some risks, but no vendor can guarantee freedom from error.
A verification workflow
1. Treat AI output as a draft from an unvetted source
Think of it as the work of a new assistant whose reliability you have not yet established. It might save time, but nothing leaves the firm unchecked.
2. Verify every citation in a primary source
For each authority:
- Locate it in a trusted legal research service or official source
- Confirm that the case or statute exists, with the right name, court, year and citation
- Read the relevant portion yourself, not a summary
- Confirm the quoted language, word for word
- Confirm that it supports the proposition for which it is cited
3. Check subsequent history
Use a citator to confirm that the authority is still good law, and see how courts have treated it.
4. Confirm jurisdiction and weight
Determine whether the authority is binding or persuasive in your court, and whether local rules or standing orders apply.
5. Verify facts against the record
If AI summarized documents or deposition transcripts, spot-check the summary against the source. Pay particular attention to dates, names, amounts and quotations.
6. Record the verification
For work product that will be filed or sent to a client, keep a short note of who verified it and how. In a pinch, that record matters.
7. Disclose when required
Some courts and judges have issued standing orders requiring disclosure or certification of AI use. Check the rules of each court where you appear.
Reduce errors at the start
- Prefer tools that cite sources you can click through
- Ask the tool to quote and identify the source for each proposition, then verify
- Break big questions into narrower ones
- Provide the actual documents when permitted and secure, rather than asking from memory
- Do not paste confidential information into unapproved tools
Supervision
Partners and supervising attorneys remain responsible for the work of those they supervise, and Rules 5.1 and 5.3 address that. Make clear in your AI policy that the verification steps apply to everyone, including paralegals and summer associates, and that the signing attorney owns the final result.
Build a culture of checking
- Share, anonymously, examples of errors that were caught
- Include verification in training, with a practical exercise
- Reward catching an error rather than treating it as embarrassment
- Encourage people to say when they used AI so that reviewers can focus
Billing and client expectations
Consider how the time spent on verification is reflected in billing and how you talk with clients about AI use. Opinion 512 discusses fees and communication, and your engagement letters may need updating.
Checklist to circulate
- Was AI used? Which tool?
- Has every citation been pulled and read?
- Has subsequent history been checked?
- Have facts been compared against the record?
- Has a second person reviewed it?
- Are any court disclosure requirements met?
How Counsel Cyber can help
We help firms choose and configure AI tools with appropriate controls, and draft policies and training around verification. Contact us if you want a sample workflow for your attorneys.