
[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael D. Berman.]
“[S]o that the clear does not become cloudy, we state the obvious: Using generative artificial intelligence to generate legal briefs and then simply cite-checking them bears no resemblance to the competent practice of law….When lawyers trade reflection for automation, they surrender the very quality that makes their words worthy of belief. Although cite checking is, of course, an important part of producing reliable, competent briefs, it is not the type of work that requires a law degree. Law is a profession….” Williams v. Honl, 348 Or. App. 505 (Apr. 22, 2026)(cleaned up; citation and quotations omitted; emphasis added).
When lawyers trade reflection for automation, they surrender the very quality that makes their words worthy of belief.
Williams v. Honl, 348 Or. App. 505 (Apr. 22, 2026).
However, in Dec v. Mullin, __ F. 4th __, 2026 WL 861530, at *5 (7th Cir. Mar. 30, 2026), the court wrote that “our concern lies with trained lawyers failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations in their filings. We remind counsel that this is easier now than ever. Entire briefs can be submitted to Westlaw or LexisNexis to check citations.” (emphasis added).
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.

