Using AI to brainstorm research angles, then verifying every word
AI is a fine place to start a search. It is a catastrophic place to end one.
Not legal advice. Sally roasts behaviour and use-cases in general, never your specific situation, and nothing here replaces a real lawyer. The cases are real; what you do about them is between you and someone licensed to tell you.
Letting AI suggest legal theories, search terms, and framing, then confirming everything in a real database before relying on it.
Mata v. Avianca, Inc.
678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) · US (S.D.N.Y.)
The cautionary case that defines the boundary. Lawyers treated a chatbot's invented cases as verified authority and filed them.
$5,000 in sanctions and a permanent place in every "do not do this" presentation. The fix was never to stop using AI. It was to verify before filing.
This is the version that actually works. Used as a brainstorming partner, AI is genuinely useful: it surfaces angles, drafts plain-language summaries, and helps you build a list of things to go check. The danger only appears when the suggestion becomes the citation without a human in between.
The whole disaster genre exists because people skipped the verification step. Keep the step and the same tool becomes an asset instead of a liability. The skill is knowing which of its outputs need a source and which do not.
“Used right, it is a research assistant who never sleeps. Used wrong, it is the reason a judge knows your name now.”
- 01Use AI for ideas, structure, and first drafts. Use a real legal database for authority.
- 02Open and read every case before it appears in anything you file or rely on.
- 03Keep a simple rule: the model can suggest where to look, never what to cite.
Not legal advice. General commentary on a use-case, not your situation. Talk to a real lawyer before you act.