DEALTECHNO BLOG
AI is becoming part of everyday legal work. The duty to check the work has not changed.
In Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., the D.C. Court of Appeals struck a brief filed on behalf of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company after finding citations to authorities it could not verify. An attorney later confirmed that four cited cases did not exist.
The attorney said she had used Google's generative AI search tool to locate legal authority and had not checked the citations before the brief was filed.
The court called the matter a cautionary tale about the misuse of AI and its consequences for attorneys, clients and courts. Its order reinforces a basic obligation: lawyers remain responsible for every authority they place before a court, whatever tool helped produce the work.
Our take
The order does not reject legal AI. It argues for disciplined adoption. The court said its intention was not to discourage attorneys from using AI, but to stress that it must be used discerningly and responsibly.
AI can accelerate research and drafting, but speed creates value only when the output is verified. LegalTech businesses therefore need capable products and people who can build reliable workflows, train users, govern risk and keep human judgement in the loop.
About DealTechno
DealTechno connects LegalTech companies with the people behind responsible growth, from go-to-market and implementation talent to AI, legal engineering, change and specialist roles.
Building your team or considering your next move in LegalTech? Speak to DealTechno.
Sources
Reuters, 3 September 2026, DC court faults lawyers for Deutsche Bank subsidiary over AI hallucination
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099, Published Order, filed 3 September 2026.