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 Intro01:08 Fireside Chat Setup02:42 Williams Case Breakdown03:24 Candor Rule And Quiet Fix05:21 Sanctions And Discipline07:45 Protecting Public Trust08:34 How To Prevent Hallucinations10:14 Verification And Tooling Tips11:57 Why AI Hallucinates12:59 Wrap Up And Resources