Charlie Amiot makes an important point: the real issue is not AI hallucinations—it is professional responsibility.
Generative AI has not changed a lawyer’s fundamental obligations. Every solicitor and barrister remains responsible for ensuring that every authority cited, every proposition advanced, and every document filed has been independently verified. Courts have always expected competence, diligence and candour. AI makes failures to meet those standards more visible.
Rather than banning AI, the profession should focus on strengthening AI literacy, reinforcing ethical obligations, and teaching lawyers how to use these tools appropriately. Used responsibly, AI can improve legal drafting, synthesise complex material, and expand access to justice. Used carelessly, it merely exposes an old problem in a new form.
As the NSW Supreme Court’s Practice Note on the use of generative AI makes clear, AI is an assistant—not an advocate. The lawyer remains accountable for every document that bears their signature.
Technology doesn’t diminish professional judgment; it makes that judgment more important than ever.
Source: AI Law Librarians
Leave a Reply