News Summary
Heidi Hafer, a corporate attorney in Texas, is under scrutiny after filing an inaccurate appellate brief concerning a $1 million jewelry dispute. Despite her efforts citing numerous court decisions, key references were found to be non-existent. This incident raises concerns about the use of AI in legal practices, with the legal community emphasizing the need for rigorous verification of AI-generated content. Hafer has expressed remorse over the errors, and her case has ignited debate on the implications of AI reliability in law.
Dallas, Texas – Heidi Hafer, a corporate attorney without previous experience in appellate law, is facing potential sanctions following an inaccurate court filing to the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals. The filing, which was submitted in May, challenged a court ruling concerning $1 million worth of jewelry that Hafer claimed were gifts to settle her family’s debts.
In her nearly 50-page submission, Hafer referenced 31 court decisions to bolster her case. However, it was later discovered that four of the cases she cited—Macy’s Texas, Inc. vs. D.A. Adams & Co. (1979), Stephens vs. Beard (1958), Gaston vs. Monroe (1896), and Estate of Malpass vs. Malpass (1996)—could not be located by the appeals court, her opposing counsel, or Hafer herself.
These errors have prompted concerns over the potential misuse of generative artificial intelligence technology in preparing legal documents. During proceedings, Hafer claimed she bore full responsibility for the inaccuracies in her filing. She indicated that this was her first appellate brief and lacked guidance on the appropriate legal procedures.
Hafer has been a licensed attorney in Texas since 1999 and has no prior disciplinary record with the state bar. Currently, she serves as the chief general counsel for a Dallas-based company focusing on artificial intelligence. John Browning, a former appellate judge representing her, noted that Hafer did not attempt to hide her mistakes. He emphasized that she has shown significant remorse for the incident and has taken steps to enhance her legal practice.
In her testimony, Hafer asserted she relied on Google to search for common law regarding gifts, stating she did not recall using any specialized AI tools. It is important to note that Google’s AI capabilities might produce summaries of search results, which could have led to her errors.
The Texas state bar and the American Bar Association have released guidelines stressing the necessity for lawyers to verify the accuracy of AI-generated information. At least three federal judges in North Texas now require attorneys to confirm the correctness of language produced with AI assistance.
Lawyers are expected to maintain a competence in technology that prevents them from uncritically accepting AI outputs. While AI has the potential to expedite certain legal tasks, research indicates that it can yield incorrect or misleading information between 17% and 34% of the time.
Previously, other attorneys have faced disciplinary actions for referencing fictional cases generated by AI. Browning contended that Hafer’s case should not warrant further punitive measures, describing it as an “honest mistake.” The justices of the appeals court have yet to announce a decision regarding Hafer’s situation.
As the legal community continues to grapple with the implications of AI in legal practices, this incident highlights the pressing need for attorneys to adopt stringent verification processes when utilizing such technologies. The implications of AI’s reliability on legal accuracy are becoming increasingly pertinent, as demonstrated by Hafer’s case.
As of now, it remains unclear how the court will proceed in determining the appropriate consequences for Hafer’s erroneous filing and the broader implications it may have for the use of AI within the legal profession.
Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic
HERE Resources
Additional Resources
- Dallas Innovates: Federal AI Regulation in Texas
- Dallas News: AI Political Ads Transparency Bill
- Orrick: Texas Responsible AI Governance Act
- Fierce Healthcare: Texas AG Settles AI Allegations
- Healthcare Dive: Texas AG Settles Generative AI Accuracy Case
- Wikipedia: Artificial Intelligence
- Google Search: AI in Legal Practice
- Google Scholar: AI Accuracy in Legal Documents
- Encyclopedia Britannica: AI and Law
- Google News: Legal Issues in AI
Author: STAFF HERE DALLAS WRITER
DALLAS STAFF WRITER The DALLAS STAFF WRITER represents the experienced team at HEREDallas.com, your go-to source for actionable local news and information in Dallas, Dallas County, and beyond. Specializing in "news you can use," we cover essential topics like product reviews for personal and business needs, local business directories, politics, real estate trends, neighborhood insights, and state news affecting the area—with deep expertise drawn from years of dedicated reporting and strong community input, including local press releases and business updates. We deliver top reporting on high-value events such as the State Fair of Texas, Deep Ellum Arts Festival, and Dallas International Film Festival. Our coverage extends to key organizations like the Dallas Regional Chamber and United Way of Metropolitan Dallas, plus leading businesses in telecommunications, aviation, and semiconductors that power the local economy such as AT&T, Southwest Airlines, and Texas Instruments. As part of the broader HERE network, including HEREAustinTX.com, HERECollegeStation.com, HEREHouston.com, and HERESanAntonio.com, we provide comprehensive, credible insights into Texas's dynamic landscape.
