Do I need a lawyer for my appeal if I have AI?
- vieinsights
- Jan 18
- 3 min read
The last couple years have brought AI to the front of public awareness and interest. The practice of law has also been affected. Major legal search engines offer an additional AI option. Lawyers have submitted pleadings drafted entirely by ChatGPT. Is the future one without judges and lawyers? Can ChatGPT or OpenAI write the perfect pleading that will overturn my case?
In a word, no.
Applied to postconviction and criminal appeals, clients have provided me with pages of quotes, case law, and written suggestions from ChatGPT, OpenAI, Google Gemini, and various other sources. The material read well and appeared like it could save the client. That is, until I checked the sources. Somehow AI gave the client a page full of fake cases.
I’m not alone in this. The Washington Post recently reported on federal judges issuing court orders with false quotes and fake facts. [1] Legal news sites regularly report on lawyers being caught submitting pleadings with false, ChatGPT-fabricated citations. For example, one California attorney was fined $10,000.00 for submitting an AI-generated pleading to the courts. [2] Attorneys representing the MyPillow CEO were ordered to pay $3,000.00 each for an AI-drafted pleading riddled with mistakes and false cases. [3]
It hasn’t been all bad. In January 2026, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. District Court Judge Xavier Rodriguez used AI to summarize pleadings, decipher facts, and write suggested questions for the attorneys at hearings. [4] The article noted an AI startup called Learned Hand that is specifically designed for judges. [5]
In my own experience, AI-related continuing legal education classes continue to show up and warn of the ethical requirements and ramifications for using AI in pleadings. Mostly, these classes advise treating AI like a legal assistant – trust but verify. Attorneys have a duty of good faith to only submit pleadings to the court that have a sound basis in law and fact. Thus, if AI writes the pleading, make sure you check it. In my own day to day, I have not yet found a viable use for AI. It cannot research to the extent I need. For example, if I needed the robot to tell me about Strickland, [6] I would be in the wrong business. AI today can usually provide a governing standard for a case but cannot find the specific, factually analogous case illustrations that I need for my arguments. It can summarize, but I need details communicated specifically and in a readable manner.
Returning to the original question, ChatGPT and other AI services cannot yet replace attorneys and write a winning appeal or postconviction motion. Some of the hope they provide may even be based on false facts and fake cases. If you or someone you love is in need of postconviction relief or an appeal, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.
Citations:
1. Daniel Wu, Federal judges using AI filed court orders with false quotes, fake names, Washington Post (Oct. 29, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/10/29/federal-judges-ai-court-orders/
2. Khari Johnson, California issues historic fine over lawyer’s ChatGPT fabrications, Cal Matters (Sep. 22, 2025), https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2025/09/chatgpt-lawyer-fine-ai-regulation/
3. Jaclyn Diaz, A recent high-profile case of AI hallucination serves as a stark warning, NPR (Jul. 10, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/07/10/nx-s1-5463512/ai-courts-lawyers-mypillow-fines
4. Erin Mulvaney, How Judges Are Using AI to Help Decide Your Legal Dispute, WSJ (Jan. 6, 2026), https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/how-ai-could-help-decide-your-next-legal-dispute-9cb12517?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqdTsLoUlY3uzo97mPsP37wCI1O7eoH9l60ujsHD3rQ8GQTx4Dr2JvaPTGOTgbA%3D&gaa_ts=696cd7d2&gaa_sig=IKlN797w_x20jhUDZ-qO17XALWr3NvftdHUaBJQUlIhuV3b9xpdOJOD_8XzTvBCiXSdfPlxj1MTog66Gxi4SbQ%3D%3D
6. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/668/)
