Can Lawyers Trust AI for Legal Research? Malpractice Basics in Plain English

Lawyers are turning to AI to speed up research, draft memos, and analyze cases. But when the tools produce fake citations or mishandle client data, malpractice risks come into play. Here’s what that means in plain English.

Why lawyers are using AI in research

Legal research has always been time-consuming. AI tools can summarize cases, highlight patterns, and generate drafts in seconds. For busy lawyers, this looks like a revolution in productivity.

The problem of “hallucinated” citations

AI doesn’t actually “know” the law. It predicts text based on patterns, which means it can create case citations that look real but don’t exist. Courts have already sanctioned lawyers for filing briefs with fake cases generated by AI.

Malpractice basics

Lawyers have duties of competence and diligence. Relying on AI outputs without verification can violate these duties. If a lawyer files incorrect work that harms a client, that may be grounds for a malpractice claim.

Confidentiality and privilege

Many free AI tools store and reuse prompts for training. If a lawyer pastes sensitive client information into one of these systems, that data may no longer be protected by confidentiality or attorney-client privilege. Even the perception of exposure can erode client trust.

Human in the loop

Best practice isn’t “ban AI entirely” — it’s to keep a human lawyer in the loop. That means:

• Verifying all citations with trusted databases
• Keeping client data out of public AI tools
• Documenting when and how AI is used in the research process

Takeaway

AI can help lawyers work faster, but it doesn’t change the rules of professional responsibility. If the output is wrong, the lawyer — not the tool — is responsible. Verifying results and protecting client data remain non-negotiable.