“Judges blast lawyers for citing hallucinated cases, but ethics pros say rule changes not needed”

David Weisenfeld has published “Judges blast lawyers for citing hallucinated cases, but ethics pros say rule changes not needed (ABA Journal Jul. 15, 2026).

He wrote that “many lawyers who prosecute and defend [professional] conduct cases say no changes are needed.”  The article continues:

“What we have in place is sufficient. They’re the same issues that lawyers will encounter using other technology,” says Seana Willing, the State Bar of Texas chief disciplinary counsel. “And until we learn otherwise, it’s going to cover whatever comes about from a lawyer’s unethical use of AI.”

Lucian Pera, an Adams & Reese partner who was a member of the ABA Ethics 2000 Commission, says existing Model Rules simply need to be interpreted against the new technology and the way lawyers are using it.

“The consensus among ethics people—and I share it—is that the rules are just fine, thank you very much,” says the Memphis, Tennessee, lawyer, who thinks the technology can be a good tool for lawyers and clients.

“Now it’s got to be used right, but that’s true of every technology that we’ve seen added to lawyers’ lives in the last 25 years,” Pera adds.

Id. (emphasis added).  The article states:

“We’re not supposed to have to rewrite the rules every time we have a new piece of technology,” says Ryan Groff, a lecturer on legal technology at the New England Law | Boston.

He notes that the ABA’s 2024 Formal Opinion 512, which is about lawyer use of generative AI tools, relied on an existing ethical framework, since lawyers already had to understand the benefits and risks associated with technologies used to bring legal services to clients.

Mr. Weisenfeld also summarized some proposed rules changes.  Here in Maryland, please see:

• Suggested A.I. Rule – Suggested Amendment to Maryland’s Computer-Generated Evidence Rule
• Maryland’s Proposed Anti-Hallucination Rule
• Maryland’s Artificial Intelligence Evidence Clinic Pilot Program