The Trajectory of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession: Developments and Lessons Learned

At Clifton Law, we are mindful of the current landscape regarding Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the legal profession. A majority of clients come to us with their case summaries entirely generated by AI, which works to their detriment since AI does not capture all of the niceties that a detailed sit-down investigation can. AI can assist with clerical tasks much faster than a human user can, but it raises serious concerns regarding confidentiality of information used in the language model, accuracy of information interpretation, and the general criticisms of using new technology in uncharted territories. Below are a few developments from the past few years regarding how AI has interacted with the legal profession along with some reference links, both good and bad.

June 22, 2023 — Mata v. Avianca (USDC SDNY 1:22-cv-01461-PKC)

In drafting opposition documents, attorneys Peter LoDuca and Steven A. Schwartz drafted a brief completely with AI without verifying if the citations were correct. U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel caught the errors and determined that counsel acted with “subjective bad faith” sufficient for sanctions under FRCP 11.

Reference: Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 1:2022cv01461 — Document 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) :: Justia

April 2, 2024 — State v. Puloka (King County Superior Court Cause No. 21-1-04851-2 KNT)

King County Superior Court Justice Leroy McCullough blocks the admissibility of machine-enhanced cellphone footage in a triple-murder trial. This marks one of the first times that a Motion to Suppress on AI grounds has been granted in the State of Washington, setting potential precedent for criminal evidentiary questions in other jurisdictions.

References: Washington state judge blocks use of AI-enhanced video as evidence (NBC News) and 04192024ai_wash.pdf.

December 17, 2024 — State v. Albisu

In Broward County, Florida, Judge Andrew Siegel dons a virtual reality headset during a hearing to examine a crime scene and “step into the shoes” of a witness at the scene of a wedding venue shooting. The VR experience was admitted into evidence and factored into the hearing.

References: Broward judge dons virtual reality headset in what's thought to be a courtroom first (Local 10) and Florida Judge Wears VR Headset To Step Inside Simulation of Crime Scene (Newsweek).

February 11, 2025 — FTC Order Against DoNotPay, Inc.

DoNotPay, Inc., a corporation that utilizes “AI Lawyers,” finalizes an order with the Federal Trade Commission requiring DoNotPay to cease all deceptive claims about the abilities of its AI chatbot. Subscribers that signed up between 2021 and 2023 will receive monetary relief and notice under the FTC’s order terms.

Reference: FTC Finalizes Order with DoNotPay That Prohibits Deceptive 'AI Lawyer' Claims (FTC.gov).

March 18, 2025 — Arizona Supreme Court AI Avatars

The Arizona Supreme Court creates two AI avatars named Daniel and Victoria to help increase accessibility to the judicial system. The avatars summarize court opinions by reading scripts authored by the bench and presenting in a “video newsroom” format. You can see “Daniel” and “Victoria” in action at the Arizona Supreme Court Newsroom. I don’t believe that they are paid on a W2 salary, though.

March 26, 2025 — Dewald v. Mass Mutual (NY County Supreme Court Index No. 655380/2023)

In an effort to promote corporations “Pro Se Pro” and Tavus’ ability to utilize AI to help unrepresented parties navigate the US legal system, Pro-Se plaintiff Jerome Dewald utilized an AI avatar to present his oral argument, despite having been able to appear before the court before and testify orally. His rationale was that the AI avatar wouldn’t convey the speech impediments that he would. The Court was not happy.

References: Oral argument video (YouTube) and An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it (AP News).

May 9, 2025 — State v. Horcasitas (Arizona State Court of Appeals Case No. 1 CA-CR 23-0215)

The family of a slain victim generates an AI victim impact statement of the victim, which is admitted into Court. The judge comments that the video conveyed a genuine sense of who the victim was. This video essentially “brought back to life” the deceased, prompting various legal and ethical questions regarding the accessibility and use of AI technology in courtrooms.

Reference: Murder victim 'speaks' beyond the grave in AI generated video at court hearing (ABC News).

August 22, 2025 — California State Bar Proposed Rule Updates

The California State Bar looks to update their proposed rules of professional conduct on competence to require every attorney to independently review, verify, and exercise professional judgment regarding any output generated by the technology that is used in connection with representing a client. This marks a Bar Association-level shift to directly addressing the responsibilities of a supervising attorney with respect to content generated by Artificial Intelligence.

Reference: Letter to State Bar on AI (LawNext).

March 4, 2026 — Nippon Life Insurance Co. of America v. OpenAI (USDC ND IL 1:26-cv-02448)

Nippon Life Insurance Company of America files a lawsuit against OpenAI Foundation and OpenAI Group PBC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that OpenAI committed unauthorized practice of law by providing legal guidance to a claimant under Nippon’s Express USA’s LTD policy. The specific allegations include that OpenAI and ChatGPT conducted legal research, provided legal analysis, drafted legal pleadings, and offered commentary on the correspondence of opposing counsel. This is one of the seminal cases to look forward to as it progresses in the courts.

Reference: Nippon Life v. OpenAI (Reuters).

Conclusion

AI definitely has taken the legal world by storm and forced lawyers and tribunals to address the issues posed head-on. Some say that the use of AI is meant to reduce overhead costs and increase efficiency, if paired with the right governing principles. Some others say that AI is another attempt to obfuscate an attorney’s duties to proofread and offer a scapegoat in the event that the work product does not come out as intended. Regardless of your position regarding AI in the legal profession, it has been made clear that technology is making its way into the legal industry more and more, and practitioners going forward should know about the benefits and perils of using such technology, drawing from the lessons learned from the incidents mentioned above.