Courts are getting tired of AI/LLM Hallucination-filled lawsuits, and are now sanctioning the lawyers involved.

Paying a $10,000 fine, proving you gave your client a copy of the decision and being referred for disbarment are terrible, but ephemeral. Yes. Disbarment (should it happen) means you lose your livelihood, but doesn’t normally lead to being a laughingstock in legal decisions for the next century or two.

Imagine a case 50 years from now citing your work in Noland V. The Land of the Free as a basis for dismissal.

Will there will still be either human attorneys, or human judges involved in the law? In any case, the LLM for the plaintiff has no shame, so it won’t even be embarrassed when it cites this case as “clearly ruling that AI-generated briefs are acceptable in California’s Fourth Appellate District, Division 44, in the case of Abbott V. Castello.” And the LLM judge will be imagining something else.

AI the time saver. Let an LLM write the brief, then read every word and check every citation anyway. Have you halved your work or doubled it? Wouldn’t it take less time to proofread for citations you already know are real, rather than guessing which is which?

I am starting to think LLMS’ future is in the creative arts, not in the law or medicine (or, for that matter, Air Traffic Control)—anywhere that imagination is useful and not deadly. Of course its art and music will be crap, but at least it will be cheap crap .

And while we’re at it, the law school at Berkeley has prohibited the use of LLMS.