Legal Tech and AI specialist Jana Saad warns of the dangers posed by artificial intelligence in the legal sector, drawing attention to a recent case that every legal practitioner should be aware of: Noland v. Land (California Court of Appeal, Second District, September 12, 2025). According to her account, the California appellate court issued a stern admonition after discovering that an attorney had relied on generative AI to prepare appellate briefs. Nearly all of the citations—and many of the referenced cases—turned out to be fabrications, the result of AI “hallucinations.” The errors went unnoticed because the attorney had neither read nor personally verified the cited authorities. The court was unequivocal: “No document filed with the court shall contain citations that the filing attorney has not personally read and verified.”

The consequences were far from minor: monetary sanctions, mandatory disclosure of the opinion to the client, and referral to the State Bar.

Saad concludes that while AI may enhance efficiency, it cannot substitute for the professional duty of diligence, particularly the obligation to read and verify every cited source. The lesson is clear: technology may serve as a valuable tool, but never as a shortcut for professional judgment or the quality control required in the practice of law.