Courts Warn Attorneys: Replace Your J.D. With a Subscription at Your Own Peril

By SKH Shareholder Brad Miller

The Warning Shot

The Oregon Court of Appeals just sent an unequivocal message to every lawyer in the state: trade independent judgment for automation, and you are not practicing law like an attorney.

In Williams v. Honl, the court sanctioned an attorney for submitting AI-hallucinated citations in an appellate brief, imposing a personal fine and requiring ongoing certifications about the accuracy of future legal work. But the court's message went much further than policing bad cites. Chief Judge Erin Lagesen invoked the very definition of the profession, describing law as a learned profession requiring intensive preparation, first-principles thinking, and the rendering of public service.

The court's bottom line was unmistakable:

"Using generative artificial intelligence to generate legal briefs and then simply cite-checking them bears no resemblance to the competent practice of law."

What Competence Actually Requires

The ruling makes clear that competence is not just about whether the output is correct — it is about whether the attorney retained ownership of the process. Specialized legal knowledge, the court explained, is developed through:

• Nuanced research into relevant law
• Discussion with colleagues and the bar
• The reading, writing, and thinking that constitutes the practice of law

If your only value-add is verifying a citation, you are not practicing law, you are doing data entry. Beyond professional atrophy, the harm is concrete: a fabricated citation, misstated rule, or poorly reasoned argument can cause real damage to clients, including added costs, delays, and compromised outcomes.

Practical Guidance from the Bench

Then, earlier this month, Deschutes County Presiding Judge Walter R. Miller Jr. reinforced these principles with concrete guidance (and warnings) for any filing that involves AI assistance:

• Verify every citation using Westlaw, Lexis, or a comparable validated service before filing.
• Read every case you cite, and confirm the cited proposition actually appears in the decision.
• Confirm that all quoted language exists verbatim in the cited authority.
• Disclose AI use and certify that all citations have been independently verified.
• Consider whether you have a good-faith basis for the arguments you are making.

Judge Miller also cautioned against real-time AI use in the courtroom. Using a laptop to record proceedings and generate live, AI-assisted responses is prohibited under UTCR 3.180(2) absent express prior court permission.

Where AI Fits, and Where It Doesn't

None of this means AI has no place in legal practice. Used thoughtfully, it can add real value: early-stage brainstorming, summarizing large document sets, organizing research notes, generating first-draft outlines, and handling routine administrative tasks. In those roles, AI frees lawyers to focus more energy on strategy, analysis, and client counseling.

The key distinction is this: AI as an assistant is a tool. AI as a substitute for legal judgment is a liability. The first, middle, and last step should always be thinking.

The Stakes

Courts are treating misuse of AI seriously. In Williams v. Honl, the attorney was personally sanctioned $8,044.25. That is the tangible cost. But the deeper risk is the erosion of something harder to rebuild: credibility, judgment, and trust. Those are the qualities that make an attorney's advocacy effective and their counsel worth seeking.

At what point does efficiency erode professional identity? Are we training the next generation of lawyers to be thinkers and advocates, or prompt engineers? The Oregon Court of Appeals has answered clearly: attorneys who abandon the hard work of legal reasoning in favor of shortcuts do so at their own peril. The technology may assist, but the responsibility must always remain human.

‍

#OregonLaw #LegalEthics #GenerativeAI #AttorneySanctions #Professionalism

‍