Letter from the Editor
With our second edition of The Prompt, we strive to share more insights on how AI tools are used, considerations that practitioners must weigh when using them, and developments in the legal profession involving AI. You may notice that some themes persist across issues. Given the nature of incorporating developing technologies into the practice of law, ethical concerns and data privacy concerns will inevitably appear in many forms because those considerations are central to sound, effective legal representation. Another theme that observers of how these tools are being used in practice have noticed is that: tools are only as effective as the user.
A hammer in the right hands can build a beautiful home. Or an ark. Or it can be a key piece of evidence in a murder trial. To that end, we share a discussion point from the latest meeting of the Standing Committee: that ethical admonitions in the news over improper citations to ‘hallucinated’ legal citations are less about the generative powers of the chatbot than they are a much older technology. Witness the unfortunate Sanctions Order issued out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. In a February 24, 2025 Order, U.S. District Court Judge Kelly Rankin chastised lawyers from one of the country's most successful personal injury law firms.
The Order is worth reading for a how-not-to incorporate the use of AI to add basic law to a legal brief. The attorneys never checked the cites, which would have revealed that the cases did not exist. The judge spotted them because the propositions for which they were cited were simply incorrect—curious as to why she was unaware of basic law in her district, the judge and her staff researched the cases. The attorneys took reasonable steps to remedy the ethical violation. But the judge imposed sanctions based upon a violation of Rule 11(b), including revocation of the pro hac vice admission for the drafting attorney.
The lesson, as usual, is that legal practice requires the same basic thoroughness and due diligence that it always required. It is possible to amplify and multiply a lawyer’s power to do more in less time with these tools at our disposal. But you are still practicing law. You will not be able to blame the hammer when the court enters an Order to Show Cause.