Artificial intelligence is becoming more common in legal work. However, a federal judge has warned about its possible effects on lawyers and clients.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian raised the concern after attorneys filed a document with incorrect citations.
The citations were linked to the use of AI tools.
Subramanian did not sanction the lawyers. Still, he said the incident raises important questions for the legal profession.
The case also highlights a challenge for law firms. They must use new technology while still training junior lawyers.
Key Takeaways
- AI use is growing in law. Firms use AI for research, drafting, and other tasks.
- AI citations need review. Lawyers should check citations before filing court documents.
- Junior training still matters. Young lawyers need hands-on legal experience.
- Firms need AI policies. Clear rules can help lawyers use AI safely.
- Clients can face risks. AI errors can cause problems when lawyers miss them.
- Human judgment remains vital. Lawyers are responsible for their court filings.
- AI skills can help careers. Legal professionals need to understand AI and its limits.
Judge Warns About AI in Legal Work
Judge Subramanian said lawyers must check AI-generated work before using it in court.
His comments followed citation problems in a New York copyright case.
On September 22, Subramanian asked Foundation Media LLC’s lawyers about AI use in a court filing.
He also asked whether AI produced certain quotes and a citation that lawyers failed to check.
The case is
Hill v. Foundation Media LLC. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The court later entered judgment for Foundation Media. The case was then closed.
However, Subramanian continued to examine the AI issue linked to the filing.
AI-Generated Citations Create Legal Risks
The filing contained citation errors. Those errors raised concerns about AI use in legal work.
Cynthia Arato represented Foundation Media. She apologized for the mistakes.
Arato said another lawyer prepared and finalized the filing.
Her declaration said the lawyer acted against the firm’s policies and training.
She also called the failure to check the citations an isolated error.
The court filings did not show that the lawyer meant to mislead the court.
Firm Used Harvey AI Tools
Arato later said the firm used AI tools from Harvey.
The problem was not simply the use of AI. Instead, the citations were not checked before the filing was submitted.
Shapiro Arato Bach said it was adding new safeguards.
Those steps aim to prevent similar problems in the future.
Meanwhile, Harvey declined to comment on the matter.
Judge Declines to Sanction Lawyers
Subramanian declined to sanction the attorneys over the citation problems.
Still, lawyers must carefully check their work.
Attorneys remain responsible for documents filed with a court.
That includes documents prepared with help from AI.
AI can help with research and drafting. However, the technology can also produce errors.
For example, an AI tool may provide a wrong citation or legal authority.
Lawyers should therefore verify AI-generated information before using it.
AI Could Affect Junior Lawyer Training
The judge’s concerns went beyond citation errors.
Subramanian also discussed junior lawyer training.
New attorneys learn many skills through daily legal work. They research cases and write legal documents.
They also check citations and receive feedback from senior lawyers.
AI can now perform some of these tasks very quickly.
As a result, junior lawyers may get fewer chances to practice them.
That could affect how they develop their legal skills.
Subramanian suggested that firms could require young lawyers to prepare initial drafts without AI.
Such a rule could give new lawyers more time to build basic skills.
Mentoring Remains Important
Mentoring is another key part of lawyer training.
Subramanian said young lawyers need proper training as legal technology changes.
Law firms may need to create clear rules for AI use.
For example, a firm could ask a junior lawyer to conduct initial research without AI.
A senior attorney could then review the work.
After that, the firm could decide where AI tools could help.
This approach could support efficiency without removing hands-on training.
AI Raises Concerns for Legal Clients
The judge also raised concerns about clients.
Some clients may want firms to use AI to reduce costs.
However, errors can create problems when lawyers fail to review AI-generated work.
Subramanian said clients should think carefully about requiring AI for tasks such as brief writing.
The judge did not say that the client in this case had ordered the lawyers to use AI.
AI use can also vary by firm and case.
Therefore, firms need clear policies that protect clients.
Those policies should also explain how lawyers can use AI safely.
What the AI Warning Means for Law Firms
The case raises several issues for law firm leaders.
First, firms need clear AI policies.
Those policies should explain when lawyers can use AI.
They should also explain when human review is required.
Second, firms need strong checking procedures.
An AI citation may look correct. Yet lawyers should still check the original source.
Legal arguments also need review.
A lawyer should confirm that an AI-generated argument matches the law.
Furthermore, firms should consider the effect of AI on training.
Junior lawyers need time to research, write, and analyze legal issues.
They also need feedback from experienced attorneys.
AI can support this process. It should not replace it.
AI Skills Could Become More Important for Lawyers
AI knowledge is becoming more important in legal careers.
Law students and junior lawyers need to understand legal technology.
They also need strong traditional legal skills.
Recruiters and law firms may value candidates who know how to use AI responsibly.
However, knowing how to use AI is only one part of the job.
Lawyers must also know when AI output needs more research.
They must understand that AI tools can make mistakes.
Most importantly, attorneys remain responsible for their court filings.
Future lawyers may need both AI skills and strong legal skills.
Those skills include research, writing, analysis, judgment, and client service.
Why This Case Matters for Law Students
The judge’s comments also matter to law students.
New lawyers learn through practical work. They research cases and write legal documents.
They also draft motions and review legal authorities.
Senior lawyers then provide feedback.
AI can now perform parts of this work.
However, new lawyers still need to understand the process.
That knowledge can help them find mistakes.
It can also help them explain legal work to clients.
For that reason, firms may need to balance AI use with hands-on training.
The issue could also affect entry-level legal jobs as AI becomes more common.
FAQs
Can lawyers use AI for legal work?
Yes. Lawyers can use AI for research and drafting.
However, attorneys should review AI-generated work before using it in court.
Why did Judge Arun Subramanian warn about AI?
Subramanian warned about the effect of AI on clients and junior lawyer training.
His comments followed citation problems in a New York copyright case.
What happened with the AI-generated citations?
A court filing contained citation errors.
Foundation Media’s counsel said the firm had used AI tools.
The citations were not properly checked before the filing was submitted.
Which AI tool did the firm use?
Cynthia Arato said the firm used AI tools developed by Harvey.
The tools were used while preparing the filing.
Did the judge sanction the lawyers?
No. Subramanian declined to impose sanctions.
The firm’s attorney had apologized and explained the errors.
What did the judge suggest for junior lawyers?
Subramanian suggested that firms could require junior lawyers to prepare initial drafts without AI.
This could give young attorneys more chances to build core legal skills.
What does the case mean for law firms?
The case highlights the need for AI policies and human review.
It also shows why lawyer training remains important.
Firms will need to balance AI efficiency with professional development.
AI Creates a New Challenge for Legal Practice
Artificial intelligence is changing legal work.
The latest warning shows that AI does not replace professional responsibility.
Law firms can use AI to save time. However, lawyers must still check the work.
They must also protect clients and develop sound legal judgment.
The case raises another important issue. Firms must continue training junior lawyers as AI takes on more tasks.
For law students, attorneys, recruiters, and law firm leaders, that balance will become increasingly important.
AI may play a larger role in legal practice. Yet careful review, mentoring, practical training, and human judgment will remain essential.
Looking for your next legal job? Explore top law firm and attorney openings on
LawCrossing and find opportunities that match your skills.
See Also:
Largest Law Firms in the World: 2026 RankingsThe post
Judge Warns AI Could Harm Lawyers and Clients first appeared on
JDJournal Blog.
