In an era where legal research is increasingly facilitated by advanced tools, both traditional and cutting-edge, the reliability of the information these tools provide and the attorney’s fundamental role in vetting this information remains important. This role is illustrated when comparing two distinct legal mishaps: one involving the long-established legal research database Westlaw, and another involving the novel use of AI by attorneys.

United States v. Medina-Luna

In the case of United States v. Medina-Luna,[1] an error occurred when Westlaw incorrectly tagged a precedent as having been overruled in part. This mistake, while originating from a reputed and widely trusted legal research database, underscores an important aspect of legal practice: the necessity for attorneys to verify the validity of the legal citations and authorities upon which they rely. This responsibility is critical in ensuring that legal arguments and decisions are based on accurate and current law.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion emphasized that the onus of verifying legal information squarely falls on the attorney. Even while recognizing that the circuit court itself had “erroneously appended an unexplained notation” to the case at issue, marking it as “overruled on other grounds,” the court explained that “Westlaw’s shallow reading” of the case law resulted in the misleading red flag. The incorrectly marked precedent potentially jeopardized the accuracy of legal arguments and judicial decisions coming after it, and the Ninth Circuit took the opportunity to correct the record and reaffirm the actual standing of the case law.

The court’s analysis serves as a reminder that legal professionals must verify the information they are presenting to the court and not blindly rely on technological tools for legal research. Legal professionals must maintain high standards of diligence and verification in their practices, safeguarding the integrity of legal proceedings.

Comparison with Avianca, Inc. Incident

This issue mirrors a recent and, at the time, a technologically novel instance where reliance on generative AI led to significant professional jeopardy for the involved attorneys. In a lawsuit involving Avianca, Inc.,[2] attorneys used ChatGPT, a generative AI tool, to apparently draft full legal documents. Unfortunately, the attorneys on the case did not adequately review the filings, resulting in the submission of entirely fictitious legal cases and citations. After being asked about these cases, the attorneys doubled down, submitting an additional eight cases that were entirely made up and created by artificial intelligence. This incident not only embarrassed the legal team but also brought them under the threat of serious professional sanctions, including potential disbarment.

Key lessons for legal professionals

Both instances serve as potent reminders of the risks associated with uncritical reliance on any legal research tool, whether it is an established legal database like Westlaw or an AI service like ChatGPT. Here are the key takeaways for legal professionals:

1. Always verify: Regardless of the source, whether an established database or an AI-generated text, it is the attorney’s responsibility to verify the accuracy and authenticity of the information.
2. Understand the tools: Attorneys must understand the capabilities and limitations of the tools they use. This includes knowing how these tools source their information and the potential for errors or “hallucinations” in the case of AI.
3. Professional responsibility: The ethical obligations of attorneys demand meticulousness in ensuring that all submitted legal documents are accurate and based on verifiable legal precedents.
4. Continued education: As technology evolves, so too must the legal profession’s understanding and oversight of these tools. Ongoing education about new legal technologies is essential.
5. Critical approach: Adopt a critical approach to all information, particularly when it significantly influences case strategy or the outcomes of legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The case of United States v. Medina-Luna — as well as the now infamous Avianca incident — is a cautionary tale regarding the evolution of legal research tools and the corresponding responsibilities of legal professionals. These examples highlight the necessity for attorneys to maintain a rigorous standard of verification, ensuring that their reliance on digital tools enhances, rather than undermines, the integrity of legal proceedings. Legal professionals are encouraged to check and double-check their legal sources, ensuring that their practice is not only efficient but, more importantly, accurate and just. This is not just a matter of professional competence, but of upholding the justice system’s foundational principles.