James_Sept-Oct_2025_web - Flipbook - Page 30
The opinion reaffirms that existing
duties— competence, diligence,
confidentiality, candor to the court,
and proper supervision— apply to
lawyers using AI just as they do in
traditional practice.
That means:
• Citing an AI-generated case without
verifying its existence is a violation
of both Rule 3.3 (Candor) and Rule 1.1
(Competence).
• Failing to supervise staff or AI tools
may violate Rule 5.3.
• Using AI to analyze confidential
information without safeguards
could violate Rule 1.6.
Firms across the country are
responding by adopting “AI Use
Policies,” requiring manual validation of all citations, mandatory
training, and restrictions on which
30
departments can deploy AI tools in
client matters.
Quotes From the Bench
The Hon. Tilman E. “Tripp” Self,
III, commented on the phantom
cite issue, stating: “In federal court,
we already have Rule 11 that puts
the attorney on the hook for any
hallucinated cites or false information. I can foresee some future consideration for pro se filers to tell the
Court whether they drafted that
pleading or whether they let AI do
it.” The judge continued, stating:
I have read about these cases
with great concern. Anytime anyone,
especially a lawyer, violates the implicit trust that judges, opposing
counsel, clients and the public at
general grant them, the entire system suffers. Our legal system’s only
currency comes from the publics’
and the parties’ acceptance of the
JAMES SEPTE M B E R /O C TO B E R 2 0 2 5
Court’s judgment and the jury’s
verdicts. When a lawyer, for whatever
reason, allows any false or inaccurate
information to be filed with the Court
and certified as correct with their
signature, he or she greatly undermines the public’s confidence in
the judicial system and that cannot
be tolerated in any form or fashion.
Such violations should be dealt with
harshly and quickly by courts and
certainly by the relevant bar association. As always, an attorney owes
a court truthful and candid information. Judges must be able to rely
on lawyers and to trust their filings.
While the temptation to let AI draft
a pleading or brief may be real and
may serve some legitimate purpose
in certain situations, attorneys are always responsible for anything in that
filing if their name is on it. Lawyers
must always hawkishly guard their
reputations for honesty and integrity— AI could care less.
