All, Legal Copywriting
The risks of using generative AI for legal copywriting
Sep
If you’re a business leader, it might seem like you can’t go a single hour without someone mentioning artificial intelligence (AI). It’s no secret that generative AI and large language models (LLMs — ironically also the same acronym for a Master’s degree in Law) are transforming the way that professionals work in many ways, and the legal sector is no exception.
On the surface, using generative AI tools like ChatGPT seems incredibly convenient, offering potentially significant time savings and efficiencies for busy attorneys and law firms. After all, such tools can draft documents, provide quick legal information, and even streamline certain processes.
However, the convenience offered by AI technologies comes with notable risks, particularly when it comes to accuracy of legal writing. For law firms, publishing inaccurate, hallucinated, or biased information can result in ethical breaches, reputational damage, and legal consequences.
While there are certain applications for using AI in your legal practice, it’s important to tread with caution when it comes to legal writing in particular. Let’s get into the details.
The risks of inaccurate AI-generated content
One of the primary concerns with using AI for legal writing is the potential for “hallucinations.” Rawia Ashraf at Thomson Reuters explains that hallucinations occur when AI tools “provide incorrect answers with a high degree of confidence.” In simpler terms, these AI models may produce text that sounds accurate but is actually entirely fabricated. This poses a critical problem in legal contexts, where accuracy is essential to upholding clear legal and ethical standards.
Keep in mind that LLMs are not equipped with the reasoning capabilities of a human lawyer. Their knowledge is based on the data they’ve been trained on, and when they encounter gaps, they may fill them with made-up information. These hallucinations can be especially dangerous in legal writing, where every word is scrutinized, and the consequences of inaccuracy can be dire.
Take, for example, a recent case in the Western District of Virginia. A federal judge ordered attorneys to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for submitting a legal brief containing fabricated cases and quotations. The attorneys cited cases that didn’t exist and even quoted language from a ruling that never appeared in the original opinion. This grave error was attributed to reliance on AI — specifically, ChatGPT.
Although the attorneys in this case likely didn’t intend to mislead the court, their failure to verify the AI-generated content led to serious repercussions. The attorneys now face possible sanctions and professional misconduct charges that could follow them for the rest of their careers. This is just one of a growing number of AI-sanction cases we’re seeing emerge in recent months, highlighting the dangers of using generative AI for critical legal tasks without thorough oversight.
Ethical and legal consequences for law firms
When a law firm uses generative AI for legal writing or even legal copywriting for their public-facing marketing materials and inadvertently publishes inaccurate or misleading information, the consequences can be far-reaching. Inaccurate legal copy on your website, marketing materials, or social media channels could misinform clients, which may lead to poor legal decisions. This can result in:
- A loss of trust
- Harm to a firm’s reputation
- Worst-case scenario: legal action against the firm
Law firms have an ethical duty to provide accurate, reliable legal information. If AI-generated content leads to the dissemination of false or misleading information, firms may face accusations of negligence.
For instance, courts have made it clear that even unintentional misuse of AI is not a defense. If an attorney relies on AI to draft legal documents or any type of published content, they are still responsible for ensuring the accuracy of those documents.
The consequences go beyond civil liability. The integrity of legal proceedings is paramount, and errors caused by faulty AI can disrupt cases, harm clients, and damage the judicial system. In the previously mentioned case of Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Associates Ltd., the judge’s order for the attorneys to show cause was a necessary step to protect the integrity of the legal process.
The bottom line? Even if AI hallucinations are unintentional, they can still lead to sanctions and damage an attorney’s professional standing.
Beware of the bias in AI models
Another significant risk associated with AI tools is bias. LLMs are trained on vast datasets, which may contain inherent biases. These biases can seep into the content generated by AI, affecting the tone, perspective, and even legal reasoning in ways that are problematic or discriminatory.
For instance, a biased AI model may produce content that favors one gender, race, or socioeconomic group over another, leading to legal arguments that inadvertently reflect those biases.
Bias can also manifest in how AI models interpret and present legal principles. If an AI tool has been trained primarily on data from a particular jurisdiction, it may not provide accurate information for cases outside that region. This presents a risk for law firms operating in multiple jurisdictions or handling cross-border legal matters.
AI’s role in legal practice: Use with caution
AI certainly has its applications in practicing law, but its role must be carefully considered. For instance, AI tools can assist with:
- Conducting preliminary research
- Drafting initial content outlines
- Reviewing vast amounts of documents for basic trends or patterns
However, confidentiality must always be considered first before entering any private or confidential information into an AI platform. Moreover, any AI-generated content should be carefully reviewed by a human lawyer to ensure its accuracy and relevance.
When used appropriately, AI can offer significant advantages, such as speeding up routine tasks and freeing up time for more substantive legal work. But for critical tasks like drafting briefs, contracts, or client-facing content, human oversight is essential.
A cautionary tale for legal professionals
Using generative AI for legal writing and marketing content presents notable risks, particularly when related to accuracy and the potential for hallucinated or biased content. As the Western District of Virginia case illustrates, even unintentional errors resulting from reliance on AI can lead to severe professional consequences, including sanctions and damage to a firm’s reputation.
While AI offers promising tools for increasing efficiency in legal practices, it’s important not to underestimate its limitations. Law firms must exercise caution and reserve critical legal writing tasks to human experts. ensure that any AI-generated content is thoroughly reviewed and fact-checked. Nothing replaces the expertise and judgment of a human lawyer.
