AI Is Like Beer: Lawyers Must Use It Responsibly

“Drink responsibly” is a familiar message in beer advertising. For lawyers using artificial intelligence, the instruction is more than a slogan. AI can help draft documents, summarize lengthy records, organize materials, and make complex information easier to work with. But the lawyer remains responsible for the work that goes to a client or a court.

Two recent appellate decisions show what happens when that responsibility is neglected.

In Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 2D2024-1392 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 21, 2026), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a declaratory judgment but wrote separately to sanction the appellants’ lawyer for what it called “rampant use of hallucinated citations” in his briefs. The amended initial brief contained at least 31 instances in which real cases were cited or quoted for propositions they did not contain. After opposing counsel identified some of the problems, the reply brief added 15 more, including a citation to a nonexistent case.

The court ordered counsel to account for the authorities. When he failed to respond promptly, it struck the amended initial brief and reply brief and directed that his clients receive notice. Ultimately, the court imposed a $500 fine for the delay and a $1,000 fine for the misuse of AI, ordered counsel to pay appellate attorney’s fees associated with the defective amended initial brief, and referred him to The Florida Bar.

The decision does not condemn the use of AI in legal practice. It addresses the failure to check work produced with its assistance. That duty is now express in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2). Effective June 15, 2026, a signer of a court filing represents that the legal authorities identified in it exist and are accurately cited. The rule applies whether or not AI was used. It does not require an AI-use certificate on every Florida pleading.

New York’s Appellate Division reached a similar conclusion in Landberg v. City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03935 (2d Dep’t June 23, 2026). The appellant’s brief cited nonexistent cases, attributed fictitious quotations to courts, and misstated what real decisions held. The court also addressed counsel’s lack of candor when questioned about the authorities. It sanctioned the attorney $8,000 and his law firm $2,500. The court observed that opposing counsel had failed to alert it to the defects, although it did not impose sanctions on opposing counsel.

Verification is not delegable. Before a lawyer signs or files a document, the lawyer must check that each cited authority exists, that quotations are accurate, and that the authority supports the proposition for which it is cited. Landberg also points to the need for training and supervision when a firm uses AI in preparing court submissions.

There is another question lawyers must address before putting client material into an AI tool: Where will that information go? Medical and financial records, confidential communications, and privileged material call for careful review of a tool’s terms and safeguards before use. A firm should understand how a service handles its information and set clear rules for what its lawyers and staff may enter into it. The privacy and confidentiality analysis depends on the tool and the circumstances. Labeling a system “open” or “closed” does not answer it.

The Florida Bar’s Ethics Opinion 24-1 provides additional guidance for Florida lawyers using generative AI. It addresses confidentiality, competence, supervision, billing practices, and the lawyer’s continuing responsibility for professional judgment and work product.

For trial lawyers handling medical malpractice, catastrophic injury, wrongful death, and defective product matters, the stakes are particularly high. AI may help organize medical records, deposition testimony, expert materials, and complex timelines, but it cannot replace the careful review and judgment required when a client’s case, and often the client’s most sensitive information, is involved.

AI is a valuable addition to legal practice. Capital Standard and Landberg offer a straightforward lesson about its use: Let it assist with the work, and apply a lawyer’s judgment to everything it produces. Read the authorities. Check the quotations. Protect the client’s information. Then take responsibility for what bears your name.