AI: It’s not just for lazy lawyers any more…
Two federal judges say use of AI led to errors in US court rulings
Two federal judges admitted in response to an inquiry by U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that members of their staff used artificial intelligence to help prepare recent court orders that Grassley called "error-ridden."
In letters released by Grassley's office on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi and U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals in New Jersey said the decisions in the unrelated cases did not go through their chambers' typical review processes before they were issued.
Both judges said they have since adopted measures to improve how rulings are reviewed.
, opens new tab
Neals, based in Newark, in his letter said a draft decision in a securities lawsuit "was released in error – human error – and withdrawn as soon as it was brought to the attention of my chambers." He said a law school intern used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research without authorization or disclosure.Neals said his chambers has since created a written AI policy and enhanced its review process. Reuters previously reported that research produced using AI was included in the decision, citing a person familiar with the circumstances.
Perspectice.
https://perjournal.co.za/article/view/21584
Can AI think like a lawyer? Evaluating generative AI in South African law
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being explored as a tool for legal research and reasoning, yet its effectiveness in applying South African legal principles remains underexamined. This study evaluates the performance of five generative AI models—ChatGPT 4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek R1, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and Grok3 Beta—across three private law scenarios involving actio de pauperie, negotiorum gestio, and actio legis Aquiliae. Each AI model’s response was assessed against seven criteria: identification of the correct legal action, accuracy of legal requirements, application to facts, case law citation, relevance of case law, consideration of defences, and clarity of the final answer. The findings reveal that while AI models generally identify and apply South African legal principles correctly, their performance varies significantly. Claude performed the strongest overall, demonstrating structured legal reasoning and engagement with statutory provisions, while ChatGPT followed closely but was undermined by hallucinated case law. DeepSeek provided sound reasoning but occasionally misapplied legal principles. Gemini and Grok were the weakest, with incomplete legal analyses and limited case law engagement. A key limitation across all models was the unreliable retrieval and application of case law, with frequent misinterpretations and fabricated references. Additionally, most models failed to incorporate statutory law unless explicitly prompted. These results underscore the potential of AI as a supplementary legal tool while highlighting its current limitations. Future research should explore AI’s competency in broader areas of South African law, including statutory interpretation and constitutional analysis, to better understand its role in legal practice and academia. While AI can assist legal professionals, human oversight remains essential to ensure doctrinal accuracy and case law reliability.
