- The legal profession is facing a pivotal turning point because AI tools — from document drafting and research to contract review and litigation strategy — are increasingly integrated into day-to-day legal work. The core question arises: when AI messes up, who is accountable? The author argues: the lawyer remains accountable.
- Courts and bar associations around the world are enforcing this principle strongly: they are issuing sanctions when attorneys submit AI-generated work that fabricates citations, invents case law, or misrepresents “AI-generated” arguments as legitimate.
- For example, in a 2023 case (Mata v. Avianca, Inc.), attorneys used an AI to generate research citing judicial opinions that didn’t exist. The court found this conduct inexcusable and imposed financial penalties on the lawyers.
- In another case from 2025 (Frankie Johnson v. Jefferson S. Dunn), lawyers filed motions containing entirely fabricated legal authority created by generative AI. The court’s reaction was far more severe: the attorneys received public reprimands, and their misconduct was referred for possible disciplinary proceedings — even though their firm avoided sanctions because it had institutional controls and AI-use policies in place.
- The article underlines that the shift to AI in legal work does not change the centuries-old principles of professional responsibility. Rules around competence, diligence, and confidentiality remain — but now lawyers must also acquire enough “AI literacy.” That doesn’t mean they must become ML engineers; but they should understand AI’s strengths and limits, know when to trust it, and when to independently verify its outputs.
- Regarding confidentiality, when lawyers use AI tools, they must assess the risk that client-sensitive data could be exposed — for example, accidentally included in AI training sets, or otherwise misused. Using free or public AI tools for confidential matters is especially risky.
- Transparency and client communication also become more important. Lawyers may need to disclose when AI is being used in the representation, what type of data is processed, and how use of AI might affect cost, work product, or confidentiality. Some forward-looking firms include AI-use policies upfront in engagement letters.
- On a firm-wide level, supervisory responsibilities still apply. Senior attorneys must ensure that any AI-assisted work by junior lawyers or staff meets professional standards. That includes establishing governance: AI-use policies, training, review protocols, oversight of external AI providers.
- Many larger law firms are already institutionalizing AI governance — setting up AI committees, defining layered review procedures (e.g. verifying AI-generated memos against primary sources, double-checking clauses, reviewing briefs for “hallucinations”).
- The article’s central message: AI may draft documents or assist in research, but the lawyer must answer. Technology can assist, but it cannot assume human professional responsibility. The “algorithm may draft — the lawyer is accountable.”
My Opinion
I think this article raises a crucial and timely point. As AI becomes more capable and tempting as a tool for legal work, the risk of over-reliance — or misuse — is real. The documented sanctions show that courts are no longer tolerant of unverified AI-generated content. This is especially relevant given the “black-box” nature of many AI models and their propensity to hallucinate plausible but false information.
For the legal profession to responsibly adopt AI, the guidelines described — AI literacy, confidentiality assessment, transparent client communication, layered review — aren’t optional luxuries; they’re imperative. In other words: AI can increase efficiency, but only under strict governance, oversight, and human responsibility.
Given my background in information security and compliance — and interest in building services around risk, governance and compliance — this paradigm resonates. It suggests that as AI proliferates (in law, security, compliance, consulting, etc.), there will be increasing demand for frameworks, policies, and oversight mechanisms ensuring trustworthy use. Designing such frameworks might even become a valuable niche service.
“The AI Accountability Reckoning: Why Lawyers Cannot Delegate Professional Responsibility to Algorithms” by Jean Gan — along with my opinion at the end.
InfoSec services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security
Governance in The Age of Gen AI: A Director’s Handbook on Gen AI
- Want a Career in Governance, Risk & Compliance? Here’s the Real Path
- Are AI Companies Protecting Humanity? The Latest Scorecard Says No
- What ISO 42001 Looks Like in Practice: Insights From Early Certifications
- Why Auditing AI Is Critical for Responsible and Secure Adoption
- Why Practical Reliability is the New Competitive Edge in AI
