AI won’t replace lawyers. It will create more of them.; The Washington Post, May 17, 2026

 Damien Charlotin , The Washington Post; AI won’t replace lawyers. It will create more of them.

"The replacement story often rests on a particular picture of what a lawyer does: reading documents, applying rules and producing text. Since AI can read, apply rules and produce text, the argument goes, lawyers are cooked. That picture is not entirely wrong, but it is the perception engineers have always had of the legal domain: Feed in the facts, apply the rule, return the output. Yet the reason lawyers exist (and command high prices for their services) is that law is shot through with ambiguity. If the rules ran themselves, no one would need us. Every step in the chain — reading, applying, producing — involves choices, some of which are genuinely difficult.

A better way to think about jobs is as bundles of tasks. Some bundles are loose: A job composed of a handful of discrete, repetitive, well-specified tasks can be peeled apart and the tasks automated one by one. Other bundles are tight, because the tasks reinforce one another and cannot be cleanly separated. The key example here is offered by radiologists, long predicted to be facing extinction due to AI. Despite the dire forecasts, their numbers keep growing, and they keep commanding ever-higher salaries.

Legal work is also hard to neatly separate. For instance, doing legal research and evaluating an argument are, for an experienced lawyer, often the same mental activity: A lawyer checks the argument by writing it. Pull those tasks apart, hand the writing to a machine, and verification suddenly becomes a separate, deliberate, expensive act — at least if you want to avoid landing in my database of courts sanctioning parties for filing “hallucinated” material. In fact, an irony is that automating the easy parts of a job often makes the hard parts harder, not easier."

Law Schools Implement AI to Focus on Ethics and Technology; Los Angeles Times, May 17, 2026

David Nusbaum, Los Angeles Times; Law Schools Implement AI to Focus on Ethics and Technology

"Over the last two years, Loyola Law School in Downtown Los Angeles has incorporated AI into six courses. It’s a sign of a growing trend where law firms are looking for attorneys who can utilize the technology to improve efficiency. While law schools have constantly looked to update coursework to keep curriculum updated as laws are updated, the application of generative AI to the practice of law is the biggest change that has happened in generations, according to Rebecca Delfino, associate professor of law at Loyola Law School...

Delfino is one of several professors who have integrated AI into their coursework. She is involved with two courses specifically focused on the ethical implications of generative AI and the legal practice.

In a first-year civil procedure course, students are divided in half, with one group an analog approach that relies on textbooks and class notes while the other half uses generative AI technology. The results are compared to see where the technology is effective and ineffective. The goal is to use AI as something that is additive rather than giving over too much authority and power, according to Delfino. For many exercises, there are six or seven AI models that are tested and compared.

Students understand that they need the AI skill set to make themselves a more attractive candidate, no matter what area of law they practice. It can be used to draft documents, conduct legal research and assist with discovery. Chatbots are tested for hallucinations, and the drawbacks are identified."

AI Has Its Place in Law, But Lawyers Who Treat It as a Replacement Can Risk Trust, Ethics, and Their Clients' Futures; International Business Times, December 11, 2025

 Lisa Parlagreco, International Business Times; AI Has Its Place in Law, But Lawyers Who Treat It as a Replacement Can Risk Trust, Ethics, and Their Clients' Futures

"When segments of our profession begin treating AI outputs as inherently reliable, we normalize a lower threshold of scrutiny, and the law cannot function on lowered standards. The justice system depends on precision, on careful reading, on the willingness to challenge assumptions rather than accept the quickest answer. If lawyers become comfortable skipping that intellectual step, even once, we begin to erode the habits that make rigorous advocacy possible. The harm is not just procedural; it's generational. New lawyers watch what experienced lawyers do, not what they say, and if they see shortcuts rewarded rather than corrected, that becomes the new baseline.

This is not to suggest that AI has no place in law. When used responsibly, with human oversight, it can be a powerful tool. Legal teams are successfully incorporating AI into tasks like document review, contract analysis, and litigation preparation. In complex cases with tens of thousands of documents, AI has helped accelerate discovery and flag issues that humans might overlook. In academia as well, AI has shown promise in grading essays and providing feedback that can help educate the next generation of lawyers, but again, under human supervision.

The key distinction is between augmentation and automation. We must not be naive about what AI represents. It is not a lawyer. It doesn't hold professional responsibility. It doesn't understand nuance, ethics, or the weight of a client's freedom or financial well-being. It generates outputs based on patterns and statistical likelihoods. That's incredibly useful for ideation, summarization, and efficiency, but it is fundamentally unsuited to replace human reasoning.

To ignore this reality is to surrender the core values of our profession. Lawyers are trained not just to know the law but to apply it with judgment, integrity, and a commitment to truth. Practices that depend on AI without meaningful human oversight communicate a lack of diligence and care. They weaken public trust in our profession at a time when that trust matters more than ever.

We should also be thinking about how we prepare future lawyers. Law schools and firms must lead by example, teaching students not just how to use AI, but how to question it. They must emphasize that AI outputs require verification, context, and critical thinking. AI should supplement legal education, not substitute it. The work of a lawyer begins long before generating a draft; it begins with curiosity, skepticism, and the courage to ask the right questions.

And yes, regulation has its place. Many courts and bar associations are already developing guidelines for the responsible use of AI. These frameworks encourage transparency, require lawyers to verify any AI-assisted research, and emphasize the ethical obligations that cannot be delegated to a machine. That's progress, but it needs broader adoption and consistent enforcement.

At the end of the day, technology should push us forward, not backward. AI can make our work more efficient, but it cannot, and should not, replace our judgment. The lawyer who delegates their thinking to an algorithm risks their profession, their client's case, and the integrity of the justice system itself."

Librarians Are Being Asked to Find AI-Hallucinated Books; 404 Media, September 18, 2025

CLAIRE WOODCOCK , 404 Media; Librarians Are Being Asked to Find AI-Hallucinated Books

"Reference librarian Eddie Kristan said lenders at the library where he works have been asking him to find books that don’t exist without realizing they were hallucinated by AI ever since the release of GPT-3.5 in late 2022. But the problem escalated over the summer after fielding patron requests for the same fake book titles from real authors—the consequences of an AI-generated summer reading list circulated in special editions of the Chicago Sun-Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this year. At the time, the freelancer told 404 Media he used AI to produce the list without fact checking outputs before syndication. 

“We had people coming into the library and asking for those authors,” Kristan told 404 Media. He’s receiving similar requests for other types of media that don’t exist because they’ve been hallucinated by other AI-powered features. “It’s really, really frustrating, and it’s really setting us back as far as the community’s info literacy.” 

AI tools are changing the nature of how patrons treat librarians, both online and IRL. Alison Macrina, executive director of Library Freedom Project, told 404 Media early results from a recent survey of emerging trends in how AI tools are impacting libraries indicate that patrons are growing more trusting of their preferred generative AI tool or product, and the veracity of the outputs they receive. She said librarians report being treated like robots over library reference chat, and patrons getting defensive over the veracity of recommendations they’ve received from an AI-powered chatbot. Essentially, like more people trust their preferred LLM over their human librarian."