Professional ethics and risks in using artificial intelligence tools in litigation, research findings

introduction

The integration of artificial intelligence tools in litigation work is rapidly expanding, from searching for case law and precedents, through summarizing investigative materials, to drafting pleadings and questions for cross-examination. Along with efficiency, speed, and cost reduction, the tools present unique professional ethics challenges: maintaining confidentiality and confidentiality, the duty of skill and caution, the prohibition of misleading the court, conflicts of interest, and fairness to the opposing party. This article presents structured research findings on key risks in the use of artificial intelligence tools in litigation, and offers a practical framework for managing risks in accordance with the principles of professional responsibility.

The discussion is particularly relevant to small and medium-sized firms, where there is a temptation to rely on automation to cope with workloads, but also difficulty in establishing technological control systems. For the "Shani Baghdadi" website and readers involved in litigation, a systematic understanding of the risks helps to make responsible usage decisions, and formulate work procedures that withstand judicial and ethical scrutiny.

methodology

The study was conducted using a combined, qualitative and quantitative approach, with the aim of identifying recurring patterns of risk and assessing their practical severity. The methodology included four components:

• Source review: Analysis of professional ethical guidelines, regulatory publications, academic articles, and professional reports dealing with the use of artificial intelligence in legal services.
• Scenario testing: Running common legal scenarios in civil and criminal litigation, including interlocutory motions, briefs, and expert opinions, while comparing human products to products created using artificial intelligence tools.
• Error analysis: Systematic coding of types of errors, for example, non-existent citations, mixing facts between cases, drafting biases, and omission of legal exceptions.
• In-depth interviews: Structured conversations with lawyers, interns, and legal technology professionals, to understand actual usage practices, existing control mechanisms, and risk perceptions.

Each component used a risk matrix based on two dimensions: probability of failure, and impact on legal proceedings, the client, or fiduciary duty to the court. The matrix allowed for a ranking of risks and the production of focused recommendations.

Results

The findings indicate five main risk groups, which recur in most of the scenarios examined:

1. Factual and legal accuracy, and content delusions

It has been found that linguistic tools may produce incorrect references, citations of non-existent rulings, or ambiguous interpretations of halakha. The risk increases when the question is formulated in general terms, when there is no reliable source database, or w