Welcome to Attorney Intelligence, where we break down the biggest advancements in AI for legal professionals every week.

Legal AI tools are increasingly being trusted with sensitive, high-stakes work but that trust is being tested. A recent MIT Technology Review piece highlighted three separate cases where hallucinated legal citations caused serious repercussions for lawyers and their firms. Despite constant reminders that AI makes mistakes, the outputs often sound so intelligent and confident that they gain a veneer of authority. And that’s when the real danger begins.

Most guidance today tells users to “just verify everything.” But that advice assumes you can afford to. When tools like Westlaw Precision promise, “Feel confident your research is accurate and complete,” or CoCounsel markets itself as “backed by authoritative content,” users are led to believe the vetting is already done for them.

That illusion of trust is exactly what got Ellis George’s legal team fined $31,000 after relying on Gemini and other AI models that produced entirely fabricated citations.

In this week’s Attorney Intelligence, we’ll explore:

1. Why hallucinations are harder to catch than most firms expect

2. Why regulation may not be the answer, and could even backfire

3. How workflows and junior roles will shift to adapt to AI

4. The technical strategies firms can implement now to reduce AI risk

Let’s get into it.

Firms will redefine what verification really means

Despite improvements in model intelligence, hallucinations remain uniquely difficult to detect. You can skim for errors in logic or grammar, but you can’t spot a fake case citation without verifying every single one - a manual process that eliminates the time-saving benefit of using AI in the first place.

For important, high-sensitivity workflows - like documents that get submitted to the court - legal industry will need to shift away from passive oversight and build more explicit verification protocols. This includes:

• Implementing structured QA checklists for AI-generated work

• Flagging and reviewing all citations or factual claims before submission

• Assigning clear responsibility for final review (more on that below)

Verification can no longer be an afterthought. It will become an operational necessity, which firms must formalize.

Relying on reputation, not regulation, to enforce standards

There’s growing pressure to regulate AI-generated legal content, but that may not be the right path forward.

In a profession where reputation is everything, even a single instance of AI misuse can erode client trust and damage a firm’s standing in the market.

Because of that, reputational pressure is emerging as the primary mechanism of accountability. Firms that allow hallucinated content to slip through won’t just risk fines, they’ll risk losing business.

Internal policies, clearer attribution practices, and greater transparency with clients are becoming the norm not because the law demands it, but because the market does.

Junior roles evolve from creators to reviewers

As AI takes on more of the initial drafting, the role of junior associates and legal staff will shift. Instead of producing from scratch, their new mandate will be to review, correct, and be accountable for AI outputs.

This will drive structural changes, including:

• Rewriting job descriptions for junior legal staff

• Re-training teams to audit and refine AI-generated content

• Clarifying accountability: “if it’s submitted under your name, it’s your responsibility - AI or not”

This cultural reset will be essential. Reviewers, not writers, will become the linchpins of quality control.

AI will be built to check itself

The most preventable hallucinations occur when tools are too loosely connected to authoritative sources.

Many of the problems we’re seeing now stem from general-purpose models not grounded in legal-specific data.

This is all changing fast as more firms are adopting layered systems where one AI checks another, or integrating models directly with internal databases and court records.

The most forward-thinking teams are treating AI not as a one-step solution, but as a two-step system: generation followed by validation. This dual-layered approach is poised to become the standard.

Where legal AI goes next

The legal industry isn’t walking away from AI, but it is walking toward something more cautious, more structured, and more accountable.

The next phase of adoption won’t be about bold claims of productivity; it will be about thoughtful checks, smarter workflows, and shared responsibility.

Verification will become discipline. Reputation will become enforcement. Junior lawyers will become reviewers. And AI won’t just be trusted, it’ll be monitored.

Legal Bytes

• Theo AI raised a $4.2M seed round to grow its proprietary data infrastructure and double down on its AI-powered legal prediction engine. The company is targeting enterprise adoption among major law firms.

• Congress cracks down on deepfakes with newly passed Take It Down Act giving regulators more tools to fight the spread of deepfakes, especially in election contexts and reputational attacks, signaling a broader legislative shift on AI misuse.

• A new survey found 72% of professionals now use AI in their workflows, but half of them are doing so through unauthorized tools, raising concerns around data security, compliance, and institutional risk.

Looking to improve your firm's efficiency?

Book a demo to see how PointOne can help maximize billable time and cut out admin at your firm.

Thanks for reading and I'll see you next week,

Adrian