BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack
BarbriPdBannerMessage

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    Live Online with Live Q&A

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Personal Injury and Med Mal

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Tuesday, November 4, 2025

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Early Bird Pricing!
MSRP
$197.00
$167.45
Save $29.55

Discount expires 10/21/25

This course is $0 with these passes:

CLE
ALL

This CLE webinar will provide guidance to personal injury lawyers on both sides about how to avoid what one decision has called the "darker consequences of AI." The program will discuss hallucinated cites, misstatements, obfuscation of facts, the wasting of judicial resources, and other problems that arise from using generative AI, agentic AI, ChatGPT, and other similar programs to manage cases or to help frame, anchor, and persuade opposing counsel, courts, and juries. The presenters will review trends regarding increasingly severe sanctions and offer practical tips for steering clear of pitfalls.

Faculty

James M. Lee
CEO, Co-Founder
LegalMation

Mr. Lee is the Co-Founder and CEO of LegalMation. He is dedicated to helping companies and law firms achieve greater profitability and efficiency through the innovative use of AI. Mr. Lee is also a founding partner of LTL Attorneys LLP, a nationally recognized litigation boutique. He is frequent speaker and commentator on AI and innovation in law, sharing insights and developments with peers and industry leaders.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

AI companies promise personal injury lawyers on both sides faster, "smarter," and more accurate ways to review and summarize large amounts of data (medical records, expert reports, prior trial testimony, treatises, reported case law) and to prepare everything from deposition outlines to demand letters and settlement packages to motions and briefs. Some platforms promise they can predict likely outcomes on key issues depending on who the judge is. Attorneys have to separate the marketing hype from reality.

The pitfalls of overconfidence in generative and agentic AI are legion, however. A new tale of false AI-generated citations is reported almost every day, often involving firms with stellar reputations. There is at least one website trying to catalog AI hallucinations. Errors include mischaracterization of case holdings, mistitling of cases, made-up cases, made-up quotations from actual cases, decisions from unrelated areas of the law, and more. The problem will likely be exacerbated by pro se litigants. Further, if AI can misstate or manufacture a legal case, it can hallucinate about what was really in those reports, records, or prior depositions.

Judges are losing patience with attorney excuses, and sanctions and consequences are escalating both for attorneys and their clients. Attorneys need more than policies about AI use; they need practical checks to catch problems.

Listen as this experienced panel of trial lawyers discusses how and why these problems are not being spotted and corrected and then offers practical ways of safely and responsibly using the latest technologies when undertaking the routine tasks their practice requires. 

Outline

I. Introduction

A. Legal technology landscape

B. Mechanics of ChatGPT, agentic AI, and generative tools

C. Limitations and problems with generative tools

D. Contrasted with traditional online research

II. Case uses for personal injury lawyers

III. Concerns and limitations

IV. Judicial responses to misuse

V. Practical methods of avoiding pitfalls

Benefits

The panel will consider these and other important issues:

  • Can AI assist in legal decision-making, risk assessment, prediction of case outcomes, and selection of key issues?
  • What are practical solutions for avoiding and ferreting out hallucinated legal precedent?
  • Can AI distill useful analysis from oral arguments or trial videos?
  • Should attorneys consider voluntarily "verifying" how or if AI was used in court filings?
  • How are court responses to AI missteps changing?