The
story
is
all
too
familiar
by
now.
A
lawyer
uses
ChatGPT
to
draft
a
brief,
gets
back
a
polished
product
that
looks
professional
and
which
appears
to
cite
relevant
cases.
Only
problem?
The
cases
are
fabricated
or
don’t
stand
for
the
proposition
for
which
they
are
cited.
The
lawyer
then
gets
caught
and
called
out.
The
standard
uproar
commences.
Why
didn’t
they
just
read
the
cases?
Everybody
knows
you
have
to
read
every
case,
every
time.
Stupid,
lazy
lawyers.
But
maybe
we
ought
to
ask
why
this
keeps
happening,
especially
when
the
propensity
of
LLMs
to
make
these
kinds
of
mistakes
and
hallucinate
is
well
known.
As
is
the
need
to
read
cited
cases.
So,
What’s
Going
on
Here?
Certainly,
it
can’t
be
disputed
that
a
lawyer
filing
a
paper
with
the
court
needs
to
read
the
cases
and
make
sure
the
cites
are
correct.
But
a
number
of
factors
work
to
place
pressure
on
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
that
can
lead
and
tempt
them
to
not
do
what
they
are
supposed
to
do.
And
these
are
often
ignored
by
the
critics
who
just
say
read
the
cases
and
there
is
something
immoral
about
lawyers
who
don’t.
The
reality
on
the
ground
is
not
always
that
simple.
The
ability
of
LLMs
to
shortcut
work
is
having
its
impact
on
expectations
and
what
clients
will
pay
for
and,
in
turn,
even
what
senior
partners
may
demand
of
associates.
And
that
impact
may
lead
to
even
greater
hallucinations
and
inaccuracy
problems
down
the
road
if
they
go
unrecognized.
The
Traditional
Way
of
Working
As
I
previously
reported,
the
expected
work
process
for
such
things
as
legal
research
may
be
changing.
That
traditional
work
process
was
to
evaluate
the
problem
and
issues,
begin
to
read
cases,
then
read
cited
cases,
then
search
for
some
more
and
related
cases.
Then
refine
the
search
and
look
other
places.
Then
even
read
dissents.
Review
things
like
the
development
of
the
legal
theory
over
time.
Understand
context
and
nuance.
All
of
this
takes
time.
It’s
tedious.
But
with
LLMs,
this
work
can
be
short
circuited.
An
“answer”
can
be
found
in
seconds.
The
result?
Clients
may
take
a
dim
view
of
paying
for
the
old-fashioned
workflow
when
they
perceive
work
can
be
done
in
a
fraction
of
the
time.
But
in
doing
so,
the
nuance
and
context
is
lost.
It
becomes
easy
to
miss
something
that’s
not
quite
right.
Can
I
Bill
For
That?
Here’s
where
economics
makes
things
a
little
complicated.
It’s
easy
to
say
when
the
LLM
gives
you
some
case
cites
you
still
have
to
read
the
cases
in
detail,
right?
That’s
probably
true
in
a
perfect
world.
But
most
lawyers
live
in
a
billable
hour
world.
They
live
in
a
world
governed
by
not
just
the
number
of
hours
you
bill
but
what
portion
of
those
hours
can
be
collected.
So,
where
does
that
leave
you
as
an
associate
or
for
that
matter,
a
billing
partner?
What
if
the
client
won’t
pay
for
the
kind
of
studied
research
that
you
think
should
be
done?
You
have
billable
hour
quotas
to
meet.
Your
advancement
and
compensation
depend
on
billables
and
collections.
If
you
do
the
extra
work
for
which
the
client
won’t
pay,
you
have
wasted
time
that
could
otherwise
be
spent
on
billable
and
collectable
time.
For
partners,
their
profitability
index
takes
a
hit.
For
associates,
what
happens
when
a
senior
partner
implicitly
(or
perhaps
explicitly)
says
we
can’t
bill
for
that,
so
don’t
do
it?
What
Is
Your
Duty
in
the
Age
of
AI?
And
exactly
what
is
the
extent
of
your
duty
to
check
citations
and
other
source
materials?
We
have
all
used
string
cites
to
support
some
clear
principles.
The
standard
for
summary
judgment
for
example:
in
pre-AI
days,
I
would
routinely
cite
cases
for
the
standard
I
pulled
from
someplace
without
reading
the
entire
case.
Or
I
might
cite
a
case
for
a
proposition
and
then
look
for
other
cases
that
stood
for
the
same
principle
without
perhaps
reading
those
cases
as
carefully
as
I
should
have.
And
now
in
the
time
of
GenAI,
I
would
be
faced
with
the
worry
that
the
work
I
perhaps
should
have
done
might
not
be
billable.
There
are
also
delegation
issues.
Let’s
say
I
ask
an
associate
or
paralegal
to
run
down
the
cite
and
they
either
use
GenAI
or
don’t
carefully
check
the
cases.
As
a
partner,
do
I
need
to
tell
them
to
do
work
that
may
be
necessary
but
may
not
be
billable
and
collectible?
What
happens
when
you
are
local
counsel
and
are
sent
a
pleading
to
sign
that
contains
cites
and
information?
Do
you
have
to
check
the
cites
even
though
it’s
doubtful
you
can
get
paid
for
it?
These
are
all
tough
questions
we
need
to
consider
as
the
tools
become
better,
and
their
use
becomes
more
demanded
and
expected.
It’s
So
Easy
Add
to
these
pressures
the
fact
that
using
these
tools
to
avoid
tedious,
time-consuming
tasks
is
so
easy
and
tempting.
Indeed,
I
suspect
most
attorney
errors
thus
far
have
stemmed
not
from
ignorance
of
the
risks,
but
because
the
tools
usually
work
well
and
require
no
technical
expertise.
You
don’t
need
IT
to
help.
You
don’t
need
to
consult
a
senior
partner.
You
don’t
have
to
read
cases
until
the
wee
hours.
Easy-peasy.
And
that’s
a
danger.
What
Needs
to
Happen
I’m
certainly
not
saying
that
we
can’t
or
shouldn’t
check
citations.
But
we
do
need
to
recognize
the
potential
pressures
being
put
on
lawyers
by
clients,
coworkers,
and
partners.
We
need
to
recognize
danger
areas
and
be
sure
we
educate
everyone,
including
clients
looking
to
lower
legal
bills
by
insisting
on
GenAI
being
used
without
robust
checking.
Law
firms
need
to
make
clear
what
is
expected
when
some
of
the
work
can’t
be
billed
or
collected
but
is
nevertheless
necessary.
And
we
need
clear
standards
from
courts
and
bar
associations
on
what
our
duties
are.
It’s
a
brave
new
world.
Until
we
acknowledge
these
economic
realities
and
adjust
our
expectations
and
guidelines
to
ensure
hallucinations
aren’t
being
adopted,
we’ll
keep
seeing
more
headlines
about
“stupid,
lazy
lawyers”
while
missing
the
real
systemic
issues
at
play.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.