*/
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:
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Jemima Coleman and Zoë Leventhal KC on the evolving global movement seeking to reframe how we view nature: to recognise that nature possesses inherent rights and to enshrine these rights in law
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
