The use of the internet is common in the legal industry, and most legal professionals find it beneficial. Our industry has its unique pieces, and we utilize various resources to accomplish our clients’ goals. We are licensed to serve clients (customer service) and they rely on our legal expertise. The quality of our service depends upon our research, experience, and competence. We need to be efficient and effective. But what happens when we rely too much on technology? 

There are many discussions and articles circulating about how the internet affects our industry and whether technology could eliminate our legal positions in the future. My guess is that this “takeover” won’t happen anytime soon considering the potential risks and liabilities associated with the use of the internet. Additionally, clients still want to interact with a live person in most practice areas. 

In recent years, we have witnessed how relying heavily on internet search engines without caution has its ethical implications which can result in an attorney being sanctioned, suspended, or disbarred. It’s generally risky for non-attorneys to rely heavily on information found on the internet as well. We have likely all had a client or two that made decisions based on an internet search engine results which further complicated their case. For attorneys, there may be steep consequences.  

In June 2023, two New York attorneys went viral for their use of artificial intelligence chatbot, ChatGPT, in a legal brief that included six false citations. Neither opposing counsel nor the Court could not locate the cases referenced in the brief. The attorneys eventually admitted they used ChatGPT to research the issues after the Court issued an order to show cause.  U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel issued a public opinion indicating the attorneys acted in “bad faith and made acts of conscious avoidance and false and misleading statements to the court.”   Additionally, “[t]he opposing party waste[d] time and money in exposing the deception. The Court’s time is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents.”   The attorneys were sanctioned and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. The law firm the attorneys work for was held jointly and severally liable for the incident.   

In the New York case, the attorneys were sanctioned under Rule 11, which states an attorney may be sanctioned for submitting pleadings that contain frivolous arguments or that have no evidentiary support. The sanctions were issued “to serve as a deterrent, rather than as punishment or compensation.”   

It is also risky to use social media and other search engines to investigate potential jurors without caution as you may be at risk for violating the rules of professional conduct. For example, in 2019, a Michigan Federal Judge “concluded that there is no recognized right to monitor jurors’ use of social media, opining that such efforts by lawyers could intrude on the “safety, privacy, and protection against harassment” to which jurors are entitled, and “unnecessarily chill” the willingness of jurors to participate in the democratic system of justice.”

In a 2021 article published by University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, Michael Murphy states “it is clear that attorneys have a requirement to perform internet research about prospective (and current) clients, witnesses, potential matters, and in certain cases, potential jurors. It is less clear where that requirement extends to other areas of legal representation and troubling that those areas may only be discovered after an attorney faces sanctions.” 

It is important to understand the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and, more specifically, which rules may apply when utilizing the internet in our practice. Additionally, you can research these issues and tips on the following websites: State Bar of Michigan, Institute of Continuing Legal Education, and American Bar Association.  As legal professionals we can expect that as technology advances, our professional duties to our clients will also advance.

The “Maintaining Competence” section of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct states “a lawyer should engage in continuing study and education, including the knowledge and skills regarding existing and developing technology that are reasonably necessary to provide competent representation for the client in a particular matter.” 

Mr. Murphy believes more should be done and he proposes continuing legal education programs across the country should incorporate basic search engine training for attorneys and that the attorney rules of professional conduct should provide more guidance. He believes it necessary to “codify the requirements for attorneys to perform an internet search as part of the rules governing an attorney’s professional responsibility.” In other words, attorneys should not have to rely on opinions from journals to avoid these sanctions, as that is not enough. The need for technological competency in our industry is on the rise due to technological advancements. 

Relying too much on technology creates a ripple effect, affecting everyone  involved in a case for better or for worse. It is not to suggest that we should do away with technology. Instead, we should work with our technological resources effectively to represent our clients, but not depend on it to be error free especially when there is so much at stake. We should utilize multiple resources to verify accuracy and seek help from our colleagues as necessary. Technology is here to supplement and expedite the services we provide, not replace the human experience.