As generative AI continues to transform industries, its integration into legal workflows has become increasingly common. From drafting documents to conducting preliminary research, the promise of speed and convenience is undeniable. However, for litigators and investigative professionals, this convenience comes with significant risk.
Generative AI platforms, including those used for legal research or case analysis, are prone to generating inaccurate or entirely fabricated information—a phenomenon known as “hallucination.” These tools can produce seemingly authoritative text that includes unverifiable citations, incorrect case law, or distorted interpretations. When used without verification, such content can undermine the integrity of an investigation or even jeopardize the outcome of a case.
Moreover, AI lacks the nuanced understanding of legal context, jurisdictional relevance, and evidentiary standards that skilled practitioners apply instinctively. Important subtleties—such as the credibility of a source, the tone of a conversation, or the hidden implications of a document—are often missed or misrepresented by automated tools.
The takeaway is clear: AI can support—but never replace—real intelligence. Litigators must approach AI-generated content with skepticism and rigor, treating it as a starting point, not a final answer.
Before citing or acting on AI-derived insights, ensure all claims are independently verified and grounded in credible, case-specific sources. When lives, liberty, or liability are on the line, shortcuts can become costly errors.
Real insights require real intelligence. Use AI wisely. Trust experience more.