Field Note: 21 Ways AI Can Hallucinate in Your Legal Brief

In this Field Note, Ron Drescher breaks down one of the most important—and misunderstood—risks in legal AI: hallucinations.The episode begins with the recent Sullivan & Cromwell filing admitting AI-generated errors, with a close look at the now-famous Schedule A. While most commentary has focused on fake citations and misquotes, Ron highlights the more subtle—and more dangerous—types of hallucinations that appeared in that filing.From structurally corrupted citations to mutated judicial language, this episode explores how AI doesn’t just make obvious mistakes—it makes mistakes that look like law.Ron then expands the discussion to a broader framework, identifying both the most well-known hallucination risks and the lesser-known categories that are more likely to survive verification and make their way into filed briefs.⚖️ What You’ll LearnWhy the Sullivan & Cromwell Schedule A is more important than the confession letterTwo underappreciated hallucinations:Citation drift (hybrid citation corruption)Mutated quotationsThe 3 most common AI hallucinations:Fabricated casesReal cases with incorrect holdingsInvented quotationsThree lesser-known (and more dangerous) hallucinations:Subtle semantic driftFake multi-case consensusLogical hallucination (broken arguments that look complete)Why “just verify the citation” is no longer enoughA practical verification framework for AI-assisted legal writing🧠 Key TakeawayAI hallucinations are no longer edge cases—they are part of the operating environment of modern legal writing.The real risk isn’t obvious errors.It’s the errors that:look correctpass a quick checkand still make it into your brief📥 Downloadable ResourceThis episode includes a companion Field Note:👉 “21 Ways AI Can Hallucinate in Your Legal Brief”Use it as a working reference during your hallucination verification process—not as a one-time read.🔧 The New Verification StandardBefore including any authority in a brief, confirm:Does the case support the proposition?Is the quote accurate and in context?Does the procedural posture match your argument?Has the legal standard shifted subtly?🔜 Coming NextField Note:12 Ways BigLaw Associates Are Quietly Optimizing AI in Legal DraftingA practical look at how lawyers in high-stakes environments are adapting their workflows to use AI effectively—without getting buried in verification.🎙️ About the ShowAI Tools for Practicing Lawyers delivers practical, no-nonsense guidance to help attorneys put AI to work in their practice right now.Hosted by Ron Drescher, a retired bankruptcy attorney with over 40 years of experience, the show focuses on real workflows—not hype.