In our almost 60 years of providing legal research, writing, and analysis to American lawyers, NLRG has continually sought to improve our services by utilizing all available research tools. We began using law libraries with physical reporters, digests, and treatises. We then moved on to online use of Westlaw and Lexis, supplemented by other legal resources available on the internet.

Throughout these various advances in legal research technology, we have sought to use each tool responsibly and efficiently. Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) has presented NLRG with the latest opportunity to adapt our research methods to a new era of technology.

The use of any new technology depends not only on its positive value, but also on the potential risks of misuse. The risks of AI misuse include misstatement and misunderstanding of case law, failure to find relevant authority, and at worst, outright hallucination of cases and other material that exist only in the AI’s own universe.  As of October 26, 2026, over 1,500 attorneys in the United States alone have been sanctioned for citing hallucinated authority to a court. The problem is so widespread that courts are charging attorneys with knowledge that the problem exists, even if the attorney tries to claim ignorance.

But the answer to these risks is not to ignore AI completely. Used properly, AI is a useful research tool. As one New York jurist remarked:

Use of AI is not the problem per se. The problem arises when attorneys abdicate their responsibility to ensure their factual and legal representations to the Court—even if originally sourced from AI—are accurate. . . . When attorneys fail to check their work—whether AI-generated or not—they prejudice their clients and do a disservice to the Court and the profession. In sum, counsel's duty of candor to the Court cannot be delegated to a software program.

Ader v. Ader, 87 Misc 3d 1213[A], *2, 2025 NY Slip Op 51563[U], *3, 2025 NY Misc LEXIS 7848, *10-11 (Sup. Ct. NY County 2025) (emphasis in original).

The judge's comments mirror guidance given by the American Bar Association in its Formal Opinion 512 (2024).  That opinion cautions attorneys against uncritical reliance on AI and advises them to be "vigilant about the tools' benefits and risks."  One suggested means of achieving AI competency is by drawing on the expertise of others knowledgeable about AI's capabilities and limitations.  NLRG can provide you with that research expertise.

At NLRG, we use AI as one among many research tools. We do not rely upon AI exclusively; we always double-check its results against other sources. In fact, we will not rely upon AI at all if you request that. Our experienced research attorneys routinely and efficiently review the results of AI for accuracy, and understand the nuances in legal authority that AI might miss. After completing research using all available tools, including AI, the research attorney handling your case will personally draft a first-rate work product, citing to fully vetted sources, that meets your precise needs, as we have been doing since our founding in 1969.