As law firms increasingly test the boundaries of using AI for legal cases, many see clear benefits, including faster research, drafting documents, and data analytics. Still, critical questions abound: What if AI makes a mistake in a court filing? Could its errors undermine an entire case? This article examines the potential consequences of AI failures in legal work, the reasons behind these failures, and strategies firms can employ to mitigate them.
The Potential and Peril of AI in Legal Work
Artificial intelligence has made significant inroads into legal practice. According to the 2025 Legal Industry Report, approximately 21% of law firms currently utilise generative AI, with larger firms (51 or more lawyers) experiencing adoption rates as high as 39%. Meanwhile, a survey by Thomson Reuters found that 95% of legal professionals expect generative AI to become central to their workflow within five years.
But with these gains come risks. AI is not infallible: it can produce confidently written, but sometimes false text. A recent academic study showed that leading legal research AI tools produce hallucinations between 17–33% of the time, providing citations that may not exist. Firms that rely too heavily on AI without human verification could face critical errors, reputational damage, and even disciplinary action.
How AI Goes Wrong in Legal Cases
1. Fictional Citations and Misleading Arguments
One of the most dangerous failures is the inclusion of made‑up legal authorities. AI systems trained on legal text can generate citations that look plausible but are entirely fictitious. Judges and opposing counsel may challenge these, and the credibility of a filing can collapse. Worse, clients may suffer if decisions are based on legally incorrect foundations.
2. Biased or Flawed Recommendations
AI tools learn from data. If the training data has bias, the AI’s suggestions might reflect those biases. In a legal context, this may influence case strategy, settlement advice, or risk assessments in ways that disadvantage certain clients or perpetuate structural unfairness.
3. Overconfidence and Lack of Explainability
Some AI systems offer reasoning, but not always in a way humans fully understand. Lawyers might wrongly assume that AI output is reliable simply because it is well‑written. Without full transparency (“why did the AI recommend this?”), Errors can go unnoticed until they develop into costly issues.
4. Data Privacy and Confidentiality Breaches
Using AI often involves uploading sensitive documents. If proper precautions, such as secure environments or non-disclosure measures, are not in place, confidential data could be exposed or reused inappropriately by the AI tool.
Real-World Costs of Relying Too Much on AI
Lost Credibility
If a court identifies false citations or weak arguments generated by AI, a lawyer’s professional reputation may suffer. Clients may question their counsel’s competence, and the firm may face ethical scrutiny as a result.
Financial Damage
Errors can lead to delays, appeals, or even sanctions, all of which carry financial consequences. Reworking documents, correcting errors, and adjusting unexpected case strategies can be costly in terms of both time and money.
Compliance and Regulatory Risk
In regulated jurisdictions, failing to verify AI-generated content might run afoul of professional conduct rules. Lawyers have a duty of care; delegating critical tasks too freely to AI might not satisfy that duty.
Ethical Implications
If AI produces biased or discriminatory output, a firm could inadvertently perpetuate unfairness. This raises ethical concerns, particularly when AI drives decisions in areas such as litigation strategy, sentencing risk prediction, or settlement analysis.
Why These Failures Occur: Key Root Causes
Insufficient Oversight
Some firms treat AI as a time-saving hack, rather than a decision-support tool. Without senior legal staff reviewing outputs, errors can go unchecked.
Inadequate Training
Lawyers may lack the technical literacy to challenge or verify AI outputs. If they don’t understand AI’s limitations, they may over-rely on its suggestions.
Vendor Overpromises
AI vendors may market their tools as infallible or “hallucination-free.” Yet empirical research has shown that hallucinations remain a real risk.
No Clear Governance Framework
Without policies on acceptable use, data handling, and verification, AI use can become ad hoc and risky. Firms may not clearly define who verifies AI outputs, or how often.
Mitigating the Risk: How to Use AI Safely in Legal Cases
Establish Strong Review Protocols
Always have a qualified lawyer check AI-generated content, especially legal arguments and citations. Use a tiered review system, starting with junior associates, followed by senior lawyers, and then partners.
Train Your Team
Educate legal staff on the risks of AI, including hallucinations, bias, and data privacy concerns. Regular training helps users critically assess AI output.
Choose Tools Wisely
Evaluate AI vendors not only on performance but on transparency, ethics, and accuracy. Ask vendors how they mitigate hallucinations and what validation they use.
Set Clear Governance Policies
Develop firm-wide rules: what data can be used, which tasks AI can assist with, how to verify AI output, and how to audit AI-generated work.
Keep Human Judgment at the Core
Treat AI as a supplementary tool, not a decision-maker. Use it to draft, research, and summarise, but rely on human lawyers for final strategy, analysis, and client decisions.
When Things Go Wrong: Examples & Lessons
Consider a scenario where a junior lawyer, pressed for time, submits a draft to court that includes AI-generated authorities without checking them carefully. The judge, recognising several non-existent cases, questions the lawyer’s competence, harming both the lawyer’s and the firm’s credibility.
In another example, a firm uses predictive analytics to assess case outcomes. The AI model suggests a high chance of success, but overlooks a recent statutory change or a local court trend. The firm advises its client to pursue high-risk litigation, which ends in a costly loss.
These scenarios highlight that AI should never replace human legal judgment. It can amplify efficiency, but unchecked mistakes could carry serious risks.
Why Lawyers Should Still Use AI But Carefully
Despite the risks, AI holds great potential: polls show that many legal professionals expect it to become central to their work in the near future. When used with proper controls, it can reduce the time spent on research, allowing lawyers to focus on higher-value work and enabling smarter resource allocation.
But as one counsel put it, using AI for legal cases is not without risk, and firms must remain vigilant. For a deeper look at the rationale behind a cautious approach, see this insightful article from Gorvins on using AI for legal cases.
Summary
The integration of AI in legal work presents both a remarkable opportunity and a significant risk. When AI is used uncritically, errors such as hallucinated citations, biased recommendations, or flawed reasoning could jeopardise cases, damage reputations, and expose firms to professional and financial consequences. But with strong governance, regular oversight, and a commitment to keeping human expertise at the heart of practice, firms may harness AI’s benefits while minimising its dangers.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the content, the use of AI in legal cases carries potential risks that must be carefully considered. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional before relying on any AI-generated content for legal matters.