Top Stories
All Sections
Finance
About
9 results for "legal AI"
OpenAI filed to dismiss a federal lawsuit by Nippon Life alleging ChatGPT acted as an unlicensed attorney — the first major judicial test of AI developer liability for downstream professional legal use.
A U.S. federal judge ruled that supervising partners are personally liable for AI-generated errors in court filings by their teams — extending sanctions exposure up the law firm hierarchy for the first time.
Legal AI platform Legora has reached a $5.6 billion valuation in its latest funding round, intensifying its rivalry with Harvey AI as institutional law firms commit serious capital to AI-assisted legal work.
Courts are now detecting four to five AI-hallucinated legal citations in filings per day, with sanctions exceeding $100,000—and law firms are adding clauses warning clients about attorney-client privilege risks.
Attorneys submitting AI-generated briefs with hallucinated case citations are facing mounting sanctions — while courts split on bans vs. deterrence, and law firms warn clients that chatbot use may destroy attorney-client privilege.
Major law firms are now writing AI privilege warnings into client contracts as courts sanction attorneys for AI-hallucinated citations — two converging risks the legal profession is only beginning to reckon with.
A Manhattan federal judge ordered a defendant to hand over 31 Claude-generated documents, ruling no attorney-client privilege exists between users and commercial AI platforms — and creating a circuit split with an opposite Michigan ruling the same day.
A Manhattan federal judge ordered a former CEO to hand over 31 AI chatbot documents to prosecutors in a fraud case — ruling that AI conversations carry no attorney-client privilege.
A federal court ordered an Oregon attorney to pay $109,700 for submitting AI-generated filings with fabricated case citations—the largest penalty yet for AI hallucination errors in a legal document.