By: Auburn Schnitzer, Staff Editor

April 04, 2025

With the rising presence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), many are worried about what the future will look like. Issues arise for many fields, from teachers’ concerns about detecting plagiarism[1] to environmentalists’ concerns about energy consumption[2] to apocalypse enthusiasts’ concerns that robots will revolt against humans. Legal scholars have speculated about what the rise of AI will mean for the legal landscape, many of whom have pessimistic expectations.

These pessimistic views have merit. The lawyer who used cases fabricated by ChatGPT is a flagship example of why we should be hesitant to embrace AI in legal work.[3] This infamous story is an example of a lawyer cutting corners rather than properly utilizing a new research tool. It is synonymous to copying facts directly from Wikipedia without checking their authenticity. AI did not create the notion of professionals cutting corners, it simply provided an easier tool to do so.

Often forgotten, however, is that some of the greatest innovations have come from individuals cutting corners or rather, the desire to make processes easier for the average user. Letters to email, pagers to cellphones, and cassette tapes to Spotify are all are innovations made with the availability of better technology to make the user experience easier rather than sticking with the status quo.

Speaking of technology, at the beginning of each invention, there have been groups fearful of their implementation. The inventions of electricity, elevators, and automobiles have each faced fear and protests at their introduction.[4] But, as their use became widespread, trust was built with the general public, and they have become staples in our daily lives. AI is no different. AI poses its own set of challenges, as mentioned above, but the solution is to meet those challenges head on rather than to avoid AI use altogether.

AI has a unique potential to aid the legal field and possibly even make it more accessible to non-lawyers. Along with other capabilities, AI tools (like ChatGPT) “use supervised machine learning techniques to predict the most logical sequence of textual output based on prior conversations and information available on the free internet.”[5] In terms of research, AI tools provide a more Google-like experience[6] as opposed to the more traditional research method of searching key terms with connector words.[7]

AI search tools could revolutionize legal research for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Unlike other fields of research, which rely on Google or Google Scholar and their natural language processing functionality, the legal field revolves around the Lexis and Westlaw search databases. Both are heavily reliant on key term and connector word searching methods. First-year law students around the country spend an entire class (multiple classes for some schools) learning how to navigate these databases to find statutes, cases, and secondary sources relevant to their topic.

Lexis has recently incorporated AI functionality that “generates responses based on the company’s huge (and growing) repository of primary law, secondary sources, Practical Guidance, constitutions and court rules, and more, providing a list of sources for attorneys to review in detail.”[8] This feature incorporates natural language processing to legal research, bringing fears of AI providing inaccurate information like that used in the ChatGPT lawyer’s brief. This is a valid fear but relates to use of the tool rather than its existence.

While lawyers should not rely on Lexis AI to interpret the law, there is no reason why lawyers should not use the tool to locate relevant cases that they then read and interpret themselves. Rather than spending hours fighting with the database to locate relevant cases, lawyers can use their valuable time and skills to apply the research to their individual circumstances. As databases refine tools like this, AI search tools could significantly streamline legal research and cut down on costs for clients.

Lawyers could also use AI to suggest ways to rewrite their analysis in a more accessible way for non-lawyers. To illustrate this concept, the following paragraph was written by ChatGPT to explain every first-year law students most hated torts topic–negligence:[9]

Negligence is when someone doesn’t act as carefully as they should in a situation where a reasonable person would be more careful. It can happen by doing something careless or by not doing something they should have. To prove negligence in court, five things usually need to be shown: the person had a duty to be careful, they didn’t follow that duty, someone was hurt, the person’s actions caused the harm, and the harm wouldn’t have happened without those actions. Courts think about how likely the harm was, how bad it could be, and how easy it would have been to prevent. Harm usually means physical injury or damage to property, though some places also include emotional harm. Proximate cause means the harm was a clear and expected result of the person’s actions. Cause-in-fact means the harm wouldn’t have happened if the person had acted differently. If the person who got hurt was also being unsafe, or something else caused the harm, it could change how much the careless person is responsible.[10]

Lawyers often fail at translating complex legal concepts into a language that the average person can understand, which is unfortunate considering that the average person is who lawyers usually represent. Lawyers can utilize AI tools in a similar form to help translate their research to a format to share with clients. Alternatively, the general public could use this functionality to rewrite legal information in a way they can personally understand based on their education level. Additionally, the Lexis and Westlaw databases are kept behind paywalls and are inaccessible to the average person. The general public can use AI to research and better understand their legal rights at a free or greatly discounted rate than they would pay consulting a lawyer.

Regardless of AI’s assistance, lawyers still need to learn how to do legal research, writing, and client communication. It is not enough to rely on AI search functions, nor is it anywhere close to ethical to have AI wholly write legal documents. Such learning is necessary for law students and lawyers but wholly outside the realm of almost every other professional field.

Overall, it is important that society learns to work with AI because, as with other technological advancements, it is impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Beyond just understanding, the legal field has a unique opportunity to utilize AI tools to make our historically gatekept field more accessible. We are at the forefront of this transition and should incorporate the new capabilities in an informed, not hesitant, way.

[1] Luona Lin, A Quarter of U.S. Teachers Say AI Tools Do More Harm than Good in K-12 Education, Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/05/15/a-quarter-of-u-s-teachers-say-ai-tools-do-more-harm-than-good-in-k-12-education/  (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[2] Katherine Bourzac, Fixing AI’s Energy Crisis, Nature, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03408-z (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[3] Molly Bohannon, Lawyer Used ChatGPT in Court–And Cited Fake Cases. A Judge is Considering Sanctions, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2023/06/08/lawyer-used-chatgpt-in-court-and-cited-fake-cases-a-judge-is-considering-sanctions/ (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[4] Christian Keil, New Technology Has Always Been Scary, Medium, https://medium.com/pronouncedkyle/new-technology-is-always-scary-8bf977a13773 (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[5] How A.I. Tools Like ChatGPT Work, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, https://teaching.charlotte.edu/teaching-support/teaching-guides/overview-how-ai-tools-chatgpt-work/ (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[6] Natural Language Processing, Google Research, https://research.google/research-areas/natural-language-processing/ (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[7] Search Databases Like a Pro: Search Using AND, OR, NOT, Benedictine University Library,  https://researchguides.ben.edu/c.php?g=261618&p=1747834 (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[8] Ethan Beberness, Inside Lexis+ AI: LexisNexis’ Latest Research Tool, Above the Law, https://abovethelaw.com/2024/01/inside-lexis-ai-lexisnexis-latest-research-tool/ (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[9] I prompted ChatGPT, asking it to “Please rewrite the following information into a concise paragraph written at a fifth grade reading level” and copy and pasted Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institutes entire page on negligence. Legal Information Institute, Negligence, Cornell L. Sch., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence (last visited Mar. 22, 2025).

[10] OpenAI, Negligence Described at a Fifth-Grade Reading Level, ChatGPT, https://chat.openai.com/ (responding to prompt described in previous footnote).