@mcgregorlevf · Lindsay McGregor
Saved 2026-05-15 · Posted 2026-04-29 · Status: New
Sullivan & Cromwell just got caught with 28+ fake citations in a court filing.
One of the most elite law firms in the world. Former associates include Amal Clooney and Peter Thiel.
AI just embarrassed them in court.
The associates had AI training sessions.
Still failed.
Here's why your team is probably missing AI errors too:
When 1 in 10 AI outputs contains errors, your brain shuts off.
Cognitive fatigue. You stop seeing mistakes.
If Sullivan & Cromwell couldn't catch it with training alone, what makes you think your team can?
The top 1% of AI users solved this differently.
They stopped treating people like human spell-checkers and built these 3 questions into every workflow:
1. Is this accurate? (catches AI hallucinations)
2. Is this useful? (forces you to think about customer impact)
3. Does this solve the real problem? (drives actual value creation)
Questions 2 and 3 turn your brain ON.
You're not fact-checking anymore. You're leading.
Training alone creates compliance.
Training + workflow infrastructure creates leaders.
Tell me your closest call with an AI hallucination. Drop your industry + what you caught (or what slipped through).
Real stories only.
#AILeadership #ExecutiveLeadership #FutureOfWork #Leadership #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #WorkflowDesign #OrganizationalPerformance #MotivationScience #Innovation
Content ideas (0)
No ideas generated yet. Run /instagram-sync ideate from Claude Code to create some.
Comments (15)
Sorry, but A.I. hallucinations in your Legal Brief doesn't "happen" to you. That's a deliberate decision to use ChatGBT to write it for you.
It’s malpractice. This is not new. An example needs to be made.
We are know this. Courts in Australia are referring lawyers who do this to their disciplinary body. This cannot happen if you actually do the work you are paid for. It is unethical.
The funniest part of this post is she is arguing quality control on this Instagram post and obviously didn’t read the S&C letter. The judge didn’t catch the hallucinations by “googling” them- opposing counsel caught the erroneous citations.
What this tells me is that I need to add a “zero ai use” clause to my retainer agreements…
So, what I'm hearing is that AI creates more work and if you would do it yourself you would get it done in less time with less effort.
Im shocked the litigation lead or assigned paralegal didnt catch this in the citation check
I am pretty sure if you're using an AI component at your law firm you're not an elite law firm. The elite part comes from diligence of humans uniqueness of their brains of them being present for every second in every moment of that architecture. Elite comes from the Work not from sidestepping of the work. Shame on them.
Really simple. Charge the attorney that signed the form with perjury if there are any AI Hallucinations included. It will only take a few disbarments for them to figure it out. Also, don’t let the attorneys charge time for AI work.
A lot of companies are discovering the hard way that AI can't replace AI jobs. I've seen companies that had fired their teams trying to get them back because AI was shit. Even these companies tell you that immediately.
If people have to verify and support their information anyway, why would I want to add Al in that mix if I already have to verify things anyway.
How is this a question? What they do is double check the work and make sure it’s accurate. It’s not a hard thing to do unless your people lack the skills, knowledge, integrity, and willingness
Last year I A.I'd myself. It said that I had worked on Star Trek Picard and Star Trek Online. I was really humbled by this hallucination. Made me sound awesome.
HalluciNations are called lies, they teach people to call them hallucinations so you look at it through a medical lens and you accept it. Hallucinations in a robot that has talked to give you an answer no matter what, it's called lies. It lies to you while destroying the ecosystem
The promise of AI was to automate the drudgery while freeing you up to do the interesting stuff. Now it appears that the drudgery has multiplied. AI makes the legal arguments, while humans check whether or not the references exist.