Practicing Law in the Age of AI: Caution Required

By Erin Joyce, Esq. and Natalie Manoukian

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming a more prominent tool used in the practice of law. While this emerging technology has promising uses, it is important to ensure that all attorneys proceed with caution when implementing AI as it poses some concerns for ethical practice. The current state of AI is not yet at the point where it can be relied on to produce ethical content. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind the standards to which all legal professionals are held and to take extra care to ensure all work produced using AI meets the requirements of professionalism.

To meaningfully engage with the complexities of ethical AI use, one must substantially understand what it actually is. AI is the simulation of human intelligence processed by machines. What makes Generative AI stand out is that it not only analyzes data but also has the ability to create it in the form of text, images, videos, audio, and synthetic data. This technological advancement, however, is precisely the reason why AI needs to be used with caution as inaccurate information can be produced. With the rise of AI use in the legal field, the State Bar has developed guidelines, promulgated through the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC). These guidelines clarify certain ethical obligations lawyers have and specify pitfalls to avoid when relying on AI. As addressed in the guidelines, the use of AI puts attorneys at risk of violating several rules outlined in the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

A key concern with AI is the reliability and accuracy of its generated content. Courts have already begun sanctioning attorneys for the misuse of AI in legal submissions, especially where attorneys have submitted filings containing fictitious citations generated by AI tools. Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co. and United States v. Hayes serve as cautionary tales for the complications which can arise from the improper use of AI. In Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., the plaintiff’s counsel submitted a brief containing problematic research and inaccurate citations. Lacey v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. CV 24-5205 FMO (MAAx), 2025 WL1363069 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2025). It was later revealed that at least two of the legal authorities cited in support of the motion were unverifiable. Id. The court imposed a sanction of $31,000, finding plaintiff’s counsel acted in bad faith. Id. Similarly, in United States v. Hayes, defense counsel filed a motion to compel containing fabricated citations. United States v. Hayes, No.2:24-cr-0280-DJC, 2025 WL235331 (E.D. Cal. 2025). It was determined by the court that counsel made knowing and willful misrepresentations with the intent to mislead the Court, a violation of the standards of professional conduct. Id. A sanction of $1,500 was imposed to serve as a deterrent to members of the Bar. Id. These recent cases highlight the appeal of using AI as a measure to save costs and how critical it is that all information be verified as the technology may produce information which can lead to a multitude of unexpected complications.

AI is not predicted to be going anywhere; in fact, the use of AI is expected to increase as technology improves. The Thomson Reuters Future of Professional Report 2024 surveyed attorneys and law firms to complete statistical analysis on expected projections of AI usage in legal practice. Although 50% of respondents feel they cannot confidently rely on AI tools at this time, studies showed that 77% of respondents believe AI will have a high impact on their work within the next 5 years with 72% of legal professionals surveyed having a positive outlook on the use of AI in their profession. Additionally, 50% of law firms cited the exploration and implementation of AI as their highest priority in future advancement.

The rapid advancements with AI may understandably leave legal professionals with several questions as to how and when it can be appropriately utilized. Rather than avoiding its inevitable presence in the office, gaining knowledge on its functionality and using it in a proper manner is a more constructive approach. To provide some guidance, COPRAC has developed Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law. State Bar of California, Committee on Professional Conduct, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (Nov. 16, 2023), https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf These guidelines are intended to serve as recommendations for navigating ethical obligations. Id. COPRAC advises attorneys adopt these guidelines, pursue education on generative AI, explore regulatory changes to protect the public, and consider future implications of AI on law students and bar applicants. Id.

For navigating the use of AI in California Courts, the Judicial Council has adopted new policies to act as guidance for AI used in judicial settings resulting from their July 18, 2025, meeting. Jud. Council of CA, Jud. Branch Admin: Rule and Standard of Use of Generative Artificial Intel. in Court-Related Work, Item No. 25-109 (2025). These new policies are intended to ensure the safe and transparent use of AI. Id. Depending on the individual and situation, the application of the policies will be determined through either rules or standards. Id. Rules will be applicable to court staff and judges who use AI outside of an adjudicative role while the standard will apply to judges using the technology in an adjudicative situation. Id. The core guidelines, however, will remain the same. Id. Providing AI with any personal information, such as driver’s license information, will be prohibited. AI should not be used to impose bias or discrimination, and users will be responsible for correcting all errors such as hallucinations or fictitious citations made by AI. Id. The adopted rules will go into effect starting September 2025. All courts that allow the use of AI are required to adopt the new policies by December 15, 2025. Id.

As AI continues to become increasingly more relevant in legal practice, all attorneys urged to ensure this new tool is utilized properly, ethically, and in a manner which upholds the high standard of professionalism and care expected of every legal professional.