Related Posts
Best cashback credit cards in the UAE?
Do all FAANG companies offer a joining bonus?
Any good solutions to hair loss?
Additional Posts in Law
Hope I can win without playing

How do you wind down after a rough day?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.




I only use it as a tool to suggest some cases to read. It’s very often wrong about what the cases actually say. But it’s a helpful starting point. Just an enhanced search that also lies and makes stuff up sometimes.
Chief
It’s not designed to research and write a draft.
Write your own draft and then ask it to edit
0%
I’ve been having good luck with the results from Microsoft copilot Researcher for case law. I’m cross referencing everything with Lexis, however.
Chief
Looks like we found the S&C associate 🤣
I thought of this post when i saw yesterday’s law.com summary lol
Chat GPT is good for just to take brief regarding a legal termanology and enhance vocabulary but not safe for copy past information given by chat GPT
Chief
look up all the cases of litigators being sanctioned for their use of AI. You have to be very very careful. As others have mentioned, never use it to draft or research de novo, but it can be good as a sanity check (but always double confirm the results). It’s best thought of as a super-enhanced proofreading and editing tool than a drafting and research tool.
😅😅😅😅😅
I’m in patent pros. It is extremely useful for researching new technologies, and decent at drafting “background” paragraphs to set the stage for describing an invention.
Yikes
It is a tool. It is meant to help - not to take over your research or brief writing (at least not yet). The mistakes it makes are too frequent and could lead to your legal downfall (censure, fines, disbarment) if you do not go through it with a fine-tooth comb.
And if you are interested, there is a website that tracks cases in which lawyers have used AI and screwed up. - https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/
1333 cases as of this reply
lol at all the litigators who don’t know how to use AI. Hallucinations is a solvable problem if you understand the underlying tech and set up the right harness. I no longer research any case law the old school way, such a time saver, and hallucination risk is near 0%.
No
You need Vincent AI. If your firm doesnt have it, you should try to have them get it
I wouldn’t trust it for legal research. It makes up cases a lot of the time or will cite cases that are against you. But if you do use it as a starting point, I would absolutely review each case to make sure it’s real and supports the proposition you’re using it for.
This better be 0.0%. Even MS365 makes cases up. Dont do it.
Agreed with SA1. If you are just a little careful thoughtful with how you use AI, it is an amazing resource. I don’t write much from scratch anymore.
But the answer is 0%. A paralegal should cite check everything with your name on it.
I just read something by a pro se plaintiff written by chatgpt. All the cases said the opposite of what they say they said. And a few were completely off.
Would you give a chainsaw to an amateur?