NCSB Journal Summer 2026

are not fact-checkers for lawyers’ citations. Submitting false authority violates this duty, regardless of intent. In our confessions above, neither of us intended to mislead the court about our legal authorities. But the burden of complying with Rule 3.3 lies exclusively with the attorney. Rule 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance. With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or asso ciated with a lawyer: “(a) a principal, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable manage rial authority in a law firm or organization, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm or organization has in effect meas ures giving reasonable assurance that the nonlawyer’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer...” While this Rule was written prior to the invention of AI, it carries an interesting new perspective if AI is considered a non-lawyer assisting in the representation of a client. AI also complicates traditional supervision in ways that lawyers may not immediately appreciate. Junior lawyers may assume that AI-generated quotations embedded in com mercial research platforms have been verified. Supervising attorneys may assume that jun iors independently checked the underlying sources. In reality, AI can sever the usual chain of responsibility by obscuring who actually verified what. When an error sur faces, courts will not be interested in whether the mistake originated with software, a con sultant, or a junior lawyer. They will focus on the attorney whose name appears on the fil ing. AI does not change the supervisory obli gations imposed by the Rules of Professional Conduct; it makes them more demanding. Firms that fail to train lawyers—especially younger ones—on verification and disclosure risks are inviting problems that no amount of post hoc explanation can fix. Rule 8.4 Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: “(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of anoth er;...(c) engage in conduct involving dishon esty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudi cial to the administration of justice;...(g) intentionally prejudice or damage his or her client during the course of the professional relationship, except as may be required by

Rule 3.3.” Submitting false, misleading, or unverified information—whether knowingly or recklessly—can prejudice the administra tion of justice and reflect adversely on fitness to practice law. Rule 11: Both the North Carolina and federal rules of civil procedure provide that an attorney may be sanctioned for making representations to the court that have not been verified to the best of the attorney’s ability. We don’t see relying on AI to be an exception to the Rule. Sanctions—Courts are No Longer Patient Every lawyer who uses AI should read the 51-page sanction order in Johnson v. Dunn , 792 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1246 (N.D. Ala. 2025) (Judge Anna M. Manasco). In that case, three attorneys for the defendant filed a brief in support of a motion to compel. One of the attorneys drafted the brief and unknowingly incorporated five AI halluci nations from ChatGPT. His co-counsel signed the pleading without verifying the quotations and citations. In the order, the judge discussed Rule 11 sanctions and viola tions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. After conducting a show cause hearing, Judge Manasco entered an order with the following sanctions: (1) the attorneys were disqualified from the case; (2) a copy of the order had to be provided to their clients, opposing counsel, and presiding judge in every pending state or federal case in which they were attorneys of record; (3) the clerk of court was directed to submit the order for publication in the Federal Supplement; (4) the offending attorneys were ordered to pro vide to the clerk of court a listing of every jurisdiction in which they were licensed to practice law within 24 hours of the entry of the order; and (5) The clerk was directed to serve a copy of the order on the general counsel of the Alabama State Bar and any other licensing authority. This order should frighten all of us. In her opinion, the judge wrote: “Every lawyer knows that citing fake cases in a court filing is a terrible decision. No one here is attempting to defend it. In the few years that generative AI has affected court filings, it has become well established that “[m]any harms flow from the submission of fake opinions.” Id. at 1256. Legal Guardrails for the Use of AI The key here is that AI can assist but

never replace independent professional judg ment. 1. No AI-generated citation may be relied upon unless located in a trusted legal data base (Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg, or other official court-approved sites). 2. Any non-legal database research must be carefully scrutinized and verified through an approved legal database. 3. When using AI to review a client’s file (i.e., summarize medical records), never input client names, confidential facts, privi leged documents, settlement positions, or personally identifiable information unless the AI database is explicitly approved for confidential use. You must be sure that, even in approved legal databases, any information you enter is kept in a confidential knowledge silo that cannot be accessed by others. Unless you have purchased a subscription from a non-legal database that offers unquestioned confidentiality, then any information or doc ument you upload in a query could become part of the sea of knowledge AI might use in a similar query from another user. 4. Firms must set clear usage rules. Just as when a partner relies on a junior lawyer’s work, the responsibility rests at the feet of the filing attorney. “The software did it” is not a defense. 5. Each firm needs to develop a policy regarding the use of AI. It needs to incorpo rate human oversight and quality control. There should be training on security and confidentiality concerns. Before You File an AI-Assisted Brief Before submitting any pleading, motion, or memorandum that involves AI at any stage, ask yourself: ☐ Have all citations been independently located in a trusted legal database (Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg, or an official court source)? ☐ Have all quotations been checked against the original source, not merely accepted from AI-generated summaries? ☐ Can I explain, if asked by the court, exactly how AI was used and what steps I took to verify its output? ☐ Did I avoid inputting confidential, privileged, or identifying client information into any AI platform not expressly approved for confidential use? ☐ Would I be comfortable defending my use of AI at a show cause hearing, under oath?

11

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR JOURNAL