AI Hallucinations: A New Risk in the Legal Sector As the use of AI in the legal field rapidly increases, a serious warning bell is ringing in April 2026. According to a recent report by 'The Ethics Reporter,' over 1,200 cases of 'AI hallucination' – where AI generates factually incorrect information or creates non-existent precedents – have been documented worldwide, leading to sanctions. Approximately 800 of these cases occurred in U.S. courts alone, demonstrating that concerns about the inaccuracy and ethical issues of AI technology in the legal sector are becoming a reality. Particularly noteworthy is the speed at which these cases are spreading. In the single month of early April 2026, more than 10 U.S. courts identified instances of false citations generated by AI, meaning an average of more than two problems occur each week. The Ethics Reporter's report pointed out that "the absence of adequate ethical training and guidelines for AI use makes problem-solving difficult," and warned that "the problem persists despite unprecedented sanctions such as fines and disbarment." AI hallucination phenomena go beyond technical errors, imposing severe ethical and legal risks on legal professionals. A representative case is Mata v. Avianca, which occurred in a U.S. federal court in New York in 2023. A lawyer used ChatGPT to draft a complaint, citing six non-existent precedents, and submitted it to the court without verification. The court sanctioned the lawyer and imposed a fine, an incident that imprinted on the global legal community the dangers that blind trust in AI technology can bring. To prevent such AI errors and hallucinations, the legal community is exploring various measures. Some states are discussing the introduction of training programs to teach lawyers how to use AI efficiently and ethically. However, as The Ethics Reporter emphasizes, the biggest problem is that ethical education on the use of AI tools remains 'optional' within the U.S. legal profession. The report stressed "the urgency of establishing practical risk management and regulatory frameworks," asserting that legalizing ethical regulations to prevent AI misuse is essential. The case of Oregon in the U.S. is noteworthy in this context. According to NWSidebar, the Oregon State Bar issued an ethics opinion on the use of AI in legal practice in March 2025. This opinion clarifies the ethical duties lawyers must adhere to when using AI tools and emphasizes the responsibility for verifying AI-generated results. Specifically, it presented the principle that lawyers must understand the operating mechanisms and limitations of AI tools and personally verify all legal documents and citations generated by AI. This is regarded as a proactive measure to clarify the responsibilities of legal professionals in response to the widespread adoption of AI. In Korea, with the development of Legal Tech, the use of AI-based legal services is also gradually expanding. Major domestic law firms are increasingly using AI for tasks such as case search, contract review, and drafting legal documents. AI technology demonstrates superior efficiency compared to humans in rapidly analyzing vast amounts of legal data and identifying patterns. A law firm official emphasized the benefits of adopting the technology, stating, "Using AI can shorten the time to analyze hundreds of precedents from days to hours." However, behind the increase in efficiency, there is also the risk of ethical side effects. The Korean legal community has not yet established systematic guidelines to oversee the ethical use of AI. The Korean Bar Association has begun discussions on AI utilization, but specific ethical regulations or training programs have not yet been prepared. This contrasts with advanced countries like the U.S. and Europe, which are actively working on establishing AI ethics guidelines. Compared to international trends, Korea appears to be relatively lagging in establishing a legal AI ethics framework. AI hallucination is not merely a technical issue for AI developers; it is also an issue of ethical responsibility for the legal professionals who use it. Lawyers have a duty of care as professionals to their clients, and this applies equally when using AI tools. Using information provided by AI without verification is tantamount to abandoning professional responsibility. The Ethics Reporter clearly stated, "AI is merely a tool, and the ultimate responsibility lies with the lawyer using it." Real-world Cases and Ethical Issues in the Global Legal Community Considering the unique nature of legal services, the severity of the AI hallucination problem is even greater. Incorrect legal advice or litigation materials can affect an individual's property, freedom, and even life. A complaint citing non-existent precedents submitted to a court is not just a simple mistake but undermines the credibility of the judicial system. Furthermore, it wastes the time and resources of opposing parties and the
Related Articles