A famous court case where AI made a significant mistake, and what it means for how lawyers work with AI.
Currently on LinkedIn, news channels and social media, there has been lots of talk over AI's accuracy. This argument hasn't just taken place in the realm of law but rather extended to most corporate professions. In the context of law, the real question is: can you rely on AI full heartedly to do complex tasks in the legal world?
This article won't argue for or against AI. Instead, it will walk through the famous court case where AI made a significant mistake, a mistake that took the legal world by storm and no doubt made plenty of lawyers blink twice before relying on AI fully.
Ironically, this case itself had nothing to do with AI whatsoever. Tom Withers III is an attorney who sued the City of Aberdeen over unpaid legal fees from separate work he had done for them. A classic case.
| Lawyer | Side | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kathleen Wilson | Withers (plaintiff) | Drafted the response filing using generative AI |
| Kathryn Williams | City of Aberdeen (defendant) | Used AI for legal research |
| Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway | Withers (local counsel) | Signed off without reviewing |
| Mark McClinton | City of Aberdeen (local counsel) | Let Williams sign on his behalf |
Now what we see in this table is beyond fascinating. Four lawyers made four different mistakes, which truly demonstrates how the role of a lawyer is changing, and how lawyers need to adapt to it.
Kathleen took the bold step of drafting the response using AI, and still needed to apply her legal knowledge to check the document before filing it. She didn't. The generative AI she used produced hallucinated citations, and they went straight into the filing.
Kathryn used AI for legal research, which is arguably the key area that many lawyers have thought of, or have used AI for. Again, it produced hallucinated citations.
Now the most interesting mistake of them all: Ridgeway and McClinton. Neither of them used AI at all. Yet their failure was different. They signed off on filings containing errors without properly checking them first.
| Lawyer | Ban from District | Fine | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kathleen Wilson | 2 years | $2,500 | Pro hac vice revoked; must attend CLE |
| Kathryn Williams | 2 years | $3,500 | -- |
| Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway | Removed from case | $1,000 | Did not draft the content, sanctioned anyway |
| Mark McClinton | Removed from case | $1,000 | Same |
So in the end, all four lawyers were indeed disqualified from the case. Eight thousand dollars in fines were handed down in total. What is fascinating to see is that Ridgeway and McClinton, whilst punished a little more lightly, still faced fines and removal from the case despite not using AI at all.
Looking at the here and now, just from this court case, we can see lawyers changing their approach. We find AI is becoming relied upon heavily, yet the role of the lawyer to check the AI went amiss.
This case points to two key areas. First, it shows what happens when AI's output is treated as finished work rather than a first draft. Second, lawyers need to adapt their process to actually check AI's output, rather than trusting it blindly.