From Magistrate Judge Luke Evans in yesterday’s City of Murfreesboro v. BFI Waste Sys. of Tenn., LLC:
There is nothing inherently wrong with using legal research tools powered by artificial intelligence—just as, in all prior generations of the American legal profession, there was nothing inherently wrong with a supervising attorney relying on the research and analysis of junior attorneys, paralegals, firm librarians, or other staff. The supervisory attorney, however, always bore ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the final product. In that sense, artificial intelligence is nothing more than a new and technologically interesting way to violate Rule 11.
The novel danger with artificial intelligence is how much easier a Rule 11 violation becomes when using it. Submitting false legal authority by conventional means requires either willfulness or a failure by multiple professionals involved in the preparation of a document. The probability of false legal authority slipping past multiple reviewers is low. In contrast, artificial intelligence combines the illusion of thorough review and analysis with the temptations of speed and low cost. Attorneys now have the power to violate Rule 11 in embarrassing ways within minutes.
