Mondaq
As a research lawyer with over 30 years experience, I often worry that advances to AI-assisted legal research tools will one day eliminate my job and that senior and junior lawyers…
As a research lawyer with over 30 years experience, I often worry that advances to AI-assisted legal research tools will one day eliminate my job and that senior and junior lawyers will no longer seek my assistance with analyzing precedent case law to provide an answer on legal issues that arise in client matters. However, I am fortunate to work with a great group of colleagues and for a law firm that supports my legal research and knowledge management role.
Being engaged in my job is, of course, important, as it would be for any worker.
As stated by Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alberta), 1987 CanLII 88 (SCC):
Work is one of the most fundamental aspects in a person’s life, providing the individual with a means of financial support, and, as importantly, a contributory role in society. A person’s employment is an essential component of his or her sense of identity, self-worth and emotional well-being.
In Lavoie v. Canada, 2002 SCC 23, Supreme Court of Canada Justice Bastarache stated: “…work is a fundamental aspect in a person’s life, implicating his livelihood, self-worth and human dignity.”
Although, if necessary, I could potentially pivot to perform other roles within the legal community and thereby retain a contributory role in society, cases continue to demonstrate that reliance on AI-assisted legal research remains dangerous to the legal profession and can undermine the justice system if lawyers and judges are not diligent in verifying the authenticity of cases presented to the court.
In Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., (District of Wyoming, Case No. 2:23-CV-118-KHR), Justice Rankin was required to issue an order against three lawyers acting for the plaintiffs to show cause why they should not be sanctioned or otherwise disciplined for presenting fake cases to the court in connection with a motion the plaintiffs had brought before the court. In support of the motion, the lawyers had cited nine cases.
However, Justice Rankin explained: “The problem with these cases is that none existed…”, with one exception.
Read more at
