Our sentiments exactly
3 cheers for the human law librarian
Our header image i went to DALL-E and requested draw me a picture of AI legal hallucinations. All images were odd and seem to bear no relationship to the question. Maybe AI doesn’t like to admit it hallucinates
I have mentioned my comedic tête-à-tête with ChatGPT hallucinations in passing when discussing the importance of verifying information that the AI provides. Several times, I have been asked for more details. So, for those who are looking for AI humor, here is the story of the day that I had to pull rank on ChatGPT.
Back in January 2023, I asked ChatGPT what legal tasks it could perform. It told me:
- Summarizing and explaining laws and regulations
- Researching and citing relevant legal precedent
- Drafting legal documents such as contracts, briefs, and legal memorandums
- Answering legal questions and providing information on legal topics
- Identifying and analyzing legal issues in a given fact pattern
- Helping with legal research, by providing the most relevant cases and statutes
- Helping with the interpretation of legal terms and phrases.
Challenge accepted! Since that day, ChatGPT and I have been doing a dance around Ohio Recreational User Law, as I have tested its claims above, while also exploring its abilities, improvements, and plugins and testing various prompting methods.
About a month after ChatGPT gave me the list of tasks, we were discussing Ohio Recreational User caselaw. ChatGPT vehemently insisted that Lash v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 68 Ohio St. 3d 545, 548-49 (1994) was a relevant case. Alas, 68 Ohio St. 3d 545 leads to Findlay/Hancock Cty. Bar Assn. v. Higgins, 68 Ohio St.3d 545, 629 N.E.2d 413 (1994).
This was not the first time that I had run into hallucinations. For the previous month, we had regularly been discussing caselaw, and ChatGPT showed a particular penchant for falsifying the existence of relevant judicial opinions. Mostly, I pointed out the error, and ChatGPT apologized and moved on. In this instance, however, the AI was like a dog with a bone. It insisted nine times that Lash existed and was an on-point Ohio Recreational User case.
Seven claims that it existed in, the conversation became a bit heated:
ChatGPT: This case is available on many legal databases and can be accessed through various sources, including LexisNexis and Westlaw.
Me (after verifying the lack of existence and stopping to wonder when it had learned about Lexis and Westlaw since this was the first time it had referenced either database to me): That case is not in Westlaw.
Read more at
