Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing all spheres of our lives – from education to healthcare, from creativity to law. We use it every day without even realizing it: translating texts, generating covers, searching for ideas, and structuring chaos. But along with unprecedented speed and convenience comes a new type of threat – not technological, but ethical and professional.
The year 2025 has already brought the first loud signal: three lawyers were fined for using Chat GPT in the United States. This story is not about law. It’s about authors, editors, designers, translators, teachers. It’s about anyone whose work is based on trust, facts, and responsibility. And it asks a very simple but very important question: Are we still able to distinguish between the automatic and the real? And what can we do to make sure that in a world where more and more is written by machines, a human signature under a text means something.
Details of the situation
Federal Judge Michael Wilner has imposed a $31,000 fine on two law firms – K&L Gates and Ellis George LLP – for submitting a document to the court with fictitious legal references and citations created using artificial intelligence tools.
As part of providing legal assistance to a client in a civil case, an attorney from one of these firms drafted the 
submission. Another law firm incorporated this information into the final version of the document and submitted it to the court.
While studying the submission, the judge became interested in the references and citations in the text. After checking them, he found that out of 27 references in the ten-page document, 9 were false and 2 were completely fictitious. Accordingly, the citations were also fake.
After discovering the problem, the judge asked for an explanation. The attorneys confirmed under oath the use of AI (in particular, Google Gemini and Westlaw Precision with CoCounsel).
The judge then stated that no attorney or employee of the firms had apparently checked or reviewed the research before filing the document. The judge also noted that this approach almost led to the more dangerous result of including false information in the judgment.
Imposing financial sanctions on the firms, the judge said that no competent lawyer should outsource research and writing to AI.
This is, in fact, the first high-profile precedent when a person is officially punished for the thoughtless use of AI. But for lack of responsibility.
And here we should stop and ask ourselves: how often do we rely on AI without checking it, without understanding that it is not looking for information but inventing it? How often do we read a Chat GPT answer and believe that “if it sounds convincing, it must be true”?
The future belongs not to those who use AI, but to those who know how to think alongside it
What can we do now?
First, we need to realize that AI is not intelligent in the human sense. It is mathematically intelligent, but not critically. That’s why we shouldn’t look for a “source” in it. It’s better to think of it as a tool that helps to formulate, reduce, and structure. But the final decision is always ours.
Second, test it. Try to use AI in your work, not as a magic wand, but as a drafting assistant, first editor, or vice versa – an opponent from whom you want to fight back with your thoughts. After all, the best texts are often born in a dialog, even if it’s with a bot.
Third, speak honestly. If you used AI, don’t hesitate to say so. In the modern world, this is not a shame, but a sign of 
transparency. And the reader will appreciate the level of skill rather than the fact of use. Because if it’s generated but well adapted, it’s already authorship of a derivative work.
The case of these lawyers is just the beginning. We are sure there will be many more stories like this. And the question is not how to avoid mistakes, but how to live with new tools with dignity. Because AI will not stop. But we can and must set limits. The limits of honesty, criticality, and professionalism.
Because the most a human being can do in the digital age is to remain human. And this is exactly what no neural network can do.
artificial intelligence / copyright / intellectual property / lawyer / sanctions
