Rein in “AI Esq?” When AI Caselaw and Citations Run Amok, Courts Notice
Artificial intelligence is all around us, in courtrooms, law offices, insurance claims processing, medical practices, and just about everywhere else. But what happens when AI makes its way into an actual Workers’ Compensation case. Today’s guest, Judge Frank McKay, is an appellate judge and a director of the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation. This is a fascinating conversation on the cutting edge of Workers’ Comp management. The Georgia board this summer issued a standing order regarding the use of AI, but what does it mean? McKay says AI is “an amazing thing” but notes while it may be a useful tool, there have been examples of cases where a lawyer – and even pro se litigants – have submitted materials where AI “hallucinated,” or “made up,” case law that didn’t exist. That’s a problem. Case citations, imagined participants, or real cases that don’t match the argument presented are problems. If someone is going to file a document, McKay says the Georgia Board is directing that the cases cited both exist and apply, verified by real, human review. AI is supposed to make things more efficient, not clog up the system with nonsense. The new Georgia rules on evidence and case law don’t ban the use of AI, but they do require the parties document AI use and accept responsibility to use human verification of AI generated findings or even AI medical record reviews. When it comes to AI, perhaps we can expect more, similar verification requirements. If you have thoughts on Workers’ Comp law or an idea for a topic or guest you’d like to hear, contact us at JPierce@ppnlaw.com or APierce@ppnlaw.com. Mentioned in This Episode: Thomson Reuters CoCounsel LexisNexis Lexis+ Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation SBWC AI Standing Order “AI 'Hallucinations' in Court Papers Spell Trouble for Lawyers,” Reuters