Lawyers Duties
← Back to Blog
Search
Authors
The Most Significant Ethics Decision of 2026? And it is Only May
The Northern District of California’s sanctions decision in Guardant Health v. Natera may become one of the most consequential legal ethics rulings of 2026. The court adopted findings that multiple attorneys failed to investigate red...
District of Nevada’s Opportunity for Junior Lawyers to Argue Motions
Like most, if not all, federal courts, the District of Nevada has a local rule that permits it to consider motions with or without a hearing. However, there is a novel twist in one Judge’s...
Using AI for Legal Tasks: When Delegation Becomes a Dirty Word
Judge Ralph Artigliere explores the growing tension between AI assistance and professional responsibility in legal practice. This article examines over-delegation risks, automation bias, eDiscovery implications, and the need for real-time human oversight in AI-assisted legal...
Supervisory Duties vis-à-vis “Hallucinated” Citations
A California federal court sanctioned a supervising partner for AI-hallucinated citations his associate filed, holding that a firm’s silence on citation-checking policy implicates the whole institution.
The Goblin in the Machine: What OpenAI’s “No-Pigeon Rule” Teaches Lawyers About AI Hallucinations
OpenAI’s “goblin incident” exposes how training incentives can produce persistent, unintended AI behavior across LLMs. The same root causes drive hallucination, and legal professionals need concrete verification steps before relying on AI output in legal...
Motion to Compel Forensic Image of Cell Phone: Granted in Part; Denied in Part
Michael Berman analyzes Madrigal v. Live Nation, where a court granted in part Ticketmaster’s motion to compel a forensic image of the class representative’s cell phone. The decision offers practitioners a clear roadmap on Rule...
Court Refuses to Enter Fed.R.Evid. 502(d) & “Clawback” Order Without Agreement; Also Refuses to Order Production of Responsive Documents That Do Not “Hit” on Search Terms
In Medal v. Amazon, a federal court refused to enter a Rule 502(d) clawback order without party agreement and declined to require production of responsive documents not captured by search terms. Michael Berman respectfully disagrees...
From Training to Execution: Embedded Safeguards for Responsible AI Use in Legal Practice
AI is already transforming legal practice, but training alone isn’t enough. This article explores how embedded safeguards—built directly into workflows—help lawyers and judges apply their knowledge reliably under pressure, reducing risk and reinforcing professional responsibility...
Cite Checking to Find Hallucinated Cases Deemed Insufficient
Recent decisions highlight that relying on cite-checking alone cannot cure hallucinated cases in AI-generated briefs, reinforcing lawyers’ duty of competence and verification.
It is Improper and a “Perilous Shortcut” to “Outsource” Discovery Positions to A.I.
In White v. Walmart, the court held that relying exclusively on AI for discovery disputes is improper, emphasizing attorneys’ duty to exercise independent judgment and confer in good faith.
Court Suggests That Opposing Counsel Also Failed to Check Citations
A Seventh Circuit decision raises a critical question for modern litigation: do lawyers have a duty to identify hallucinated or false citations in opposing counsel’s filings? While stopping short of imposing sanctions, the court signaled...
“Hallucinations” by West’s CoCounsel?
In U.S. v. Farris, the Sixth Circuit sanctioned appointed counsel after AI-assisted briefs generated through Westlaw CoCounsel included false quotations and misstatements of precedent. The opinion underscores that even when AI cites real authorities, lawyers...