Oops AI Did it Again: Issues Surrounding AI and Legal Research

The use of AI is a new frontier in the legal world. Our clients use it, our pro se opposing parties use it, and attorneys are trying to determine the best ways to use and implement it to our clients’ advantage in a way that is smart, appropriate, cost-effective, and ethical. By now, we have all heard of the case from the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Texas in which a plaintiff’s attorney filed a brief that contained two cases that wholly did not exist and quotations from cited authority that could not be located within said cited authority[1]. This is certainly not the only case citing this issue or experiencing difficulties with the use of AI as many other attorneys across the Country have been cautioned or disciplined for the use (or perhaps the lack of oversight and review) of AI.

Like many other attorneys reading the headlines of such cases, I was surprised and alarmed that an attorney could be misled by AI to the extent that fictitious citations or reference materials that appeared genuine were fictitious. Yet, attorneys have been utilizing different technologies for years. We are constantly adapting to new and emerging forms of advances in available software and technology. It was not that long ago that we all adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic’s requirements for remote proceedings and workstations to reduce in person encounters. Attorneys are resilient and adaptive, and AI is the next challenge to conquer. Our firm like many others, has decided to cautiously dip our toes into the responsible use of AI, with the caveat that anything related to AI is double, triple, and quadruple checked for accuracy.

To begin testing the functionality and effectiveness of AI as it relates to the research of case law, I decided to ask a prominent AI software program for its help in locating case law surrounding an issue of tree branch encroachments, a fairly typical topic for property owners’ association law and real estate law in general. Specifically, I asked AI to locate Texas case law on rights a property owner has if his/her neighbor’s tree branches are encroaching onto their side of the fence and/or property line. This an excerpt of its response[2]:

Pflugerville v. Berry, 2014 WL 4116455 (Tex. App. – Austin 2014)

Issue: Damage caused by tree roots and branches encroaching onto a neighboring property.
Holding: A property owner has the right to trim tree limbs and roots that encroach onto their land without entering the neighbor’s property.
Key Quote: The court reaffirmed the right of self-help, stating that an owner “may trim a neighbor’s encroaching tree branches or roots at the property line.”

Flaten v. Maddison, 2022 WL 17478090 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, no pet.)

Issue: The plaintiffs sued over tree branches from a neighbor’s tree falling and causing damage.
Holding: The court found no liability unless the tree was dead, diseased, or known to be dangerous, reaffirming that a healthy tree isn’t a nuisance just for overhanging.

Cox v. Dear, No. 05-14-00863-CV, 2015 WL 3958504 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2015, no pet.)

Issue: A large limb from the defendant’s tree fell and damaged the neighbor’s property.
Holding: If the tree owner knew or should have known the danger (e.g., disease or instability), they could be liable under negligence principles.

Sterling v. McDonald, 198 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas 1947, no writ)

An older but often-cited case affirming that ownership includes the airspace above the land, and one may trim trees back to the property line.

Pretty convincing, right? The key information every case cite needs is listed: party names, case cite, court information, petition history. Sure, it isn’t a perfect Bluebook or Greenbook citation, but it is quite impressive. AI went further and even summarized the cases or included actual quotes from the cases. However, a quick Westlaw or LexisNexis search will reveal that none of the cases listed above exist. When I asked AI why it included cases that do not exist, its response was this: “You’re absolutely right to double-check – thank you for calling that out. Let me clarify: some of the earlier citations I provided were illustrative of general legal principles but not tied to actual published cases that appear in Westlaw.”

AI, without its programming flaws, has the potential to transform the legal field by increasing efficiency and accessibility, but it must be used with a high level of caution and significant oversight. Oversight by attorneys and other professionals is essential in our field to ensure that the information we are providing clients, opponents, and the courts is accurate in order to maintain our high ethical standards and the production of quality work product. AI should never be utilized only to be presented to the client, opposition, or courts as the final work product. AI, however, can be a great tool as a starting point. In my example above, if AI had given me a few cases that might be somewhat relevant (and at least exist), I could have then reviewed those cases and found other case cites referenced within the cases to either bolster an argument or draft a legal opinion for a client. Conversely, I could also have reviewed any opposing authority and compared it with the legal cases I intended to cite to strengthen my client’s legal position or better advise my client on the strengths and weaknesses of its position. AI will continue to evolve and become smarter in its legal research, but even then, attorneys should not fully trust AI as the ultimate source and/or as the replacement for work by an attorney or paralegal. Issues with AI will arise only if we become fully dependent upon it and treat its findings as our own legal research.

The American Bar Association in its Formal Opinion 512 dated July 29, 2024, addressed the ethical issues of AI usage among attorneys[3]. Formal Opinion 512 states, “[t]o competently use a GAI [“Generative Artificial Intelligence”] in a client representation, lawyers need not become GAI experts. Rather, lawyers must have a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the specific GIA technology that the lawyer might use…Given the fast-paced evolution of GAI tools, technological competence presupposes that lawyers remain vigilant about the tools’ benefits and risks.”

Certain courts across the County have adopted standing orders on the use of AI and verification of the accuracy of pleadings. For example, Local Civil Rule 7.2(f) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas requires if “[a] brief [is] prepared using generative artificial intelligence [the attorney] must disclose this fact on the first page under the heading ‘Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.’ If the presiding judge so directs, the party filing the brief must disclose the specific parts prepared using generative artificial intelligence.”[4] While the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has adopted a standing order[5] for Judge Michael M. Baylson with regard to AI usage, which states, “[i]f any attorney for a party, or a pro se party, has used Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) in the preparation of any complaint, answer, motion, brief, or other paper filed with the Court, and assigned to Judge Michael M. Baylson, MUST, in a clear and plain factual statement, disclose that AI has been used in any way in the preparation of the filing, and CERTIFY, that each and every citation to the law or the record in the paper, has been verified as accurate.” Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California – San Fransico Division has adopted a similar standing order[6], which states, in pertinent part, “[a]ny brief, pleading, or other document submitted to the Court the text of which was created or drafted with any use of an AI tool shall be identified in its title or pleading caption, in a table preceding the body text of such brief or pleading, or by a separate Notice filed contemporaneously with the brief, pleading, or document.”

As attorneys, we must be cognizant of AI’s many flaws as we are advocates for our clients and are given the duty to protect our clients’ interests, which includes properly vetting case law to ensure the cases we cite are accurate, on point, and appropriate for the given legal matter at hand. It is noteworthy that the sanctions against attorneys mentioned above were rendered against an attorney, not the AI software the attorney utilized. In the end, if your name is on a filing to the court, whether you utilize AI or not, it is your responsibility to ensure the accuracy of its contents.

Kristen Pierce is an Associate Attorney with Henry Oddo Austin & Fletcher, P.C., with a focus on Property Owners and Community Associations law. This article is made available by the attorney and/or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law; it is not being made available to provide specific legal advice. By using this website and/or article, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the law firm publisher or attorney author. This website should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. Any references to particular sets of events are meant for illustration purposes only and do not constitute opinions, comments, or advice about any specific case whether pending, resolved, anticipated, actual, or partially constructed from actual cases. The author expresses that she is not bound to any particular legal opinion or future professional judgment or decision on the basis of this article.

[1] Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2024 BL 431433, E.D. Tex., No. 1:23-cv-281 (opinion dated November 25, 2024).

[2] This portion of the Article includes content generated by ChatGPT (GPT-5), an AI model developed by Open AI. This information provided is for general informational purposes only and does not intend or should be construed as legal advice or a methodology in which attorneys should utilize AI functioning for the production and/or research of case law.

[3] Please see the American Bar Association’s full opinion at Formal Opinion 512.

[4] For the full text of Local Civil Rule 7.2, please visit Rules & Orders | Northern District of Texas | United States District Court.

[5] For the full text of Judge Michael M. Baylson’s standing order, please visit Standing Order Re Artificial Intelligence 6.6.pdf.

[6] For the full text of Judge Peter H. Kang’s standing order, please visit PHK-Civil-Standing-Order_2025.7.16.pdf.

Nov 11, 2025

Attorneys Related to this Article