*/
We have all heard the stories about AI-hallucinated cases finding their way into skeleton arguments and written submissions, but until relatively recently spotting one in the wild was a rarer occurrence.
Mangled case citations have been a feature of legal research enquiries for as long as there have been cases to cite. The seasoned law librarian can untangle jumbled years and volume numbers, decode anagrammed abbreviations, spell-check mistyped or misheard party names and, more often than not, locate your desired case.
Hallucinated citations, on the other hand, present an entirely different challenge. At first glance they seem legitimate but, despite meticulous efforts to track them down, they remain frustratingly elusive.
Take, for example, a recent encounter we had with a dubious citation during the course of an enquiry. After exhausting all available tools to decode and locate the case, our suspicion grew: could this be a rogue hallucination? The deeper we dug, the clearer it became that no such case existed, at which stage we turned to the likely source, Generative AI.
For a law librarian, encountering a hallucinated citation is a real Scooby Do reveal moment, so we excitedly entered prompts into various Generative AI applications – both free and paid – asking them to summarise our hallucinated case. The results were intriguing:
These examples are given not to suggest that any particular Generative AI tool should be preferred. Rather, they highlight that interrogation is key.
While the library remains the perfect starting point for legal research, with up-to-date practitioner texts and dedicated legal databases, in reality not everyone will have immediate access to such a resource and will instead begin their journey with readily available (and often free) Generative AI applications. These tools are adept at producing convincing imitations of case references and summaries, presented to the querent with an unruffled confidence that can mislead.
Keep your research on the right track with these simple steps:
Sally McLaren is a law librarian at the Inner Temple Library, with 20+ years of experience. She is enthusiastic about improving access to legal information.
Lily Rowe is a law librarian at the Inner Temple Library. She is interested in making access to legal information more effective and exciting for all.
We have all heard the stories about AI-hallucinated cases finding their way into skeleton arguments and written submissions, but until relatively recently spotting one in the wild was a rarer occurrence.
Mangled case citations have been a feature of legal research enquiries for as long as there have been cases to cite. The seasoned law librarian can untangle jumbled years and volume numbers, decode anagrammed abbreviations, spell-check mistyped or misheard party names and, more often than not, locate your desired case.
Hallucinated citations, on the other hand, present an entirely different challenge. At first glance they seem legitimate but, despite meticulous efforts to track them down, they remain frustratingly elusive.
Take, for example, a recent encounter we had with a dubious citation during the course of an enquiry. After exhausting all available tools to decode and locate the case, our suspicion grew: could this be a rogue hallucination? The deeper we dug, the clearer it became that no such case existed, at which stage we turned to the likely source, Generative AI.
For a law librarian, encountering a hallucinated citation is a real Scooby Do reveal moment, so we excitedly entered prompts into various Generative AI applications – both free and paid – asking them to summarise our hallucinated case. The results were intriguing:
These examples are given not to suggest that any particular Generative AI tool should be preferred. Rather, they highlight that interrogation is key.
While the library remains the perfect starting point for legal research, with up-to-date practitioner texts and dedicated legal databases, in reality not everyone will have immediate access to such a resource and will instead begin their journey with readily available (and often free) Generative AI applications. These tools are adept at producing convincing imitations of case references and summaries, presented to the querent with an unruffled confidence that can mislead.
Keep your research on the right track with these simple steps:
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Leah Arthur, a pupil, and her second seat supervisor, John Goss, share their perspectives on building a productive pupil-supervisor relationship
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
The Ministry of Justice will match-fund up to 100 criminal pupillages, with grants available to criminal chambers across England and Wales. Similar to the COIC scheme, the grants will match-fund pupillages additional to those otherwise offered without government funding
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
