From time to time, a client will mention that she is using AI to answer their employment law questions. Supposedly, AI will replace lawyers at some point in the future. That may be, but we are not there yet. Last week, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals lowered the boom on two law firms that relied on AI to help write their appellate briefs without double checking their accuracy. They also did not help their cause by questioning the Court's authority to question the validity of their legal skills after it discovered citations to non-existent cases, fabricated quotes from court decisions, fabricated citations to the record, etc. The Court gave them the chance to explain themselves and to provide copies of the court decisions they cited and/or quoted and they apparently refused. Accordingly, the Court ordered them to pay their opponents' legal fees for the entire appeal, double their opponents court costs and $15,000 each. Whiting v. City of Athens, Tenn., No. 24-5918/5919 (6th Cir. 2026).
AI has a record of hallucinating facts, quote and laws. Failing to double-check your AI in litigation is remarkably stupid because you can be sure that your opponent will call you out even if the Court's law clerks do not. In real life, clients that rely on AI do not have an opponent to correct their mistakes until they have been sued for their mistake. Short cuts may make sense in the short term, but you can be sure that it will cost you in the long run. In other words, pennywise and pound foolish.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.