Avoiding AI Hallucinations in Legal Practice

This Law Practice Podcast fireside chat with Alan Klevan, Jennifer Ellis, and Steve Embry discusses recent court responses to lawyers filing AI-hallucinated or fabricated citations, focusing on the Oregon appeals decision in Williams. The panel explains that the court emphasized Rule 3.3’s duty of candor to both the court and opposing counsel, criticizing the lawyer not only for including fabricated authorities but also for attempting a “quiet correction” without acknowledging the problem. They discuss growing judicial frustration, the likelihood of sanctions and disciplinary referrals, and examples of suspensions. The speakers stress that generative AI hallucinations are inherent, so lawyers must verify every citation by checking links and reading cases, use appropriate research tools, learn effective prompting techniques, and promptly disclose and remedy any errors rather than conceal them.

00:00 AI Hallucinations Intro
01:08 Fireside Chat Setup
02:42 Williams Case Breakdown
03:24 Candor Rule And Quiet Fix
05:21 Sanctions And Discipline
07:45 Protecting Public Trust
08:34 How To Prevent Hallucinations
10:14 Verification And Tooling Tips
11:57 Why AI Hallucinates
12:59 Wrap Up And Resources