Legal professionals face an unprecedented challenge in the age of artificial intelligence. While tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and other large language models (LLMs) seem to offer near-instant answers to complex legal questions, they also come with a critical flaw: hallucination. Not in the clinical sense, but in the AI-specific context — hallucination refers to the generation of information that is convincingly formatted and articulated, yet completely false. This is no small issue. When AI hallucinates legal precedent, the cost is not just an embarrassing correction. For attorneys, it could mean malpractice claims, courtroom sanctions, or even disbarment.
Let us be clear: AI doesn’t get sanctioned. You do.
Imagine an immigration attorney representing a long-term undocumented resident, someone who has lived in the U.S. for over a decade and now seeks lawful status based on family hardship. The attorney uses a general-purpose AI tool to identify potential precedent. The model confidently cites Matter of Hernandez-Pino, 2018, 9th Circuit, stating that anyone unlawfully present for 10 years with U.S. citizen children is automatically entitled to cancellation of removal. The case sounds legitimate, complete with fabricated case number, legal logic, and persuasive quotes.
Except — there is no such case.
The attorney files a motion relying on the AI’s output. The judge, unable to verify the precedent, challenges its validity. Opposing counsel flags the citation as fictitious. Within days, the attorney is issued a Rule 11 show-cause order for submitting false legal authority. Her reputation suffers, her client’s case is jeopardized, and her professional standing is in freefall. All because she trusted a tool that made something up — with no warning or disclaimer.
This is not a hypothetical risk. In 2023, two New York attorneys were sanctioned for submitting a brief containing entirely fabricated federal case law generated by ChatGPT. Their failure wasn’t just using AI — it was assuming AI was right.
This is exactly the problem Bigado Legal AI was built to solve.
Unlike generic LLMs, Bigado’s legal modules are jurisdiction-aware, citation-verified, and transparent about what is real versus what is speculative. In our platform, attorneys never receive a case reference unless it has been either human-verified or flagged clearly as unverified. When a statute is suggested, its current status — including whether it has been overruled, limited, or distinguished — is flagged. In the future, Bigado will integrate directly with Shepard’s or KeyCite for even stronger validation, but even now, our risk matrix and logic labeling prevent attorneys from mistaking generated text for actual law.
Let’s consider a second example — this time in criminal law.
A defense attorney, Michael Reed, is handling a felony assault case where his client allegedly struck a police officer during an altercation. The client has prior offenses, and the stakes are high. Reed uses an LLM-powered assistant — not Bigado — to draft a motion to suppress certain statements made during custody. The AI provides a citation to People v. Jennings, supposedly a 2020 California Court of Appeal case that overturned similar convictions due to Miranda violations stemming from unclear police warnings. It sounds ideal. The AI even summarizes the ruling, quotes the opinion, and lists a docket number.
Reed adds it to his motion and files.
At the suppression hearing, the judge questions the origin of People v. Jennings. Legal databases show no such case. The district attorney moves to strike the filing and reports the anomaly. The judge, concerned that false citations are being used in a criminal defense motion, refers Reed for potential disciplinary action. Although he pleads ignorance, his reputation is already damaged. The client loses the motion — and trust in their attorney.
With Bigado, this would not have happened.
Our criminal defense AI module would have pulled validated decisions such as People v. Seibert or Berghuis v. Thompkins, depending on the jurisdiction, and labeled any inferences as such. Even where an exact precedent wasn’t available, Bigado would not generate a fictitious appellate opinion just to satisfy the human user. In fact, we deliberately prevent that behavior. Our system doesn’t aim to please — it aims to protect.
And we start every relationship the same way: with an assessment.
Attorneys interested in Bigado don’t jump into using AI for live cases immediately. First, they undergo an extensive paid preliminary assessment — similar to a physician ordering lab tests before offering a diagnosis, or an attorney conducting discovery before filing motions. You can’t know where you’re going until you know where you are.
We evaluate their practice area, jurisdiction, typical workflows, intake systems, and exposure to legal risk. We audit how they currently use — or misuse — AI tools and automation. Then, and only then, do we implement foundational automations such as intake chatbots, scheduling flows, document prompts, and risk-flagging tools. Everything we do is grounded in the understanding that attorneys have ethical duties that AI models do not.
That’s why Bigado doesn’t act like a chatbot. It acts like a cautious, well-trained associate with a clear chain of supervision. It flags what it doesn’t know. It never makes up a case. It marks everything speculative, and it stops attorneys from stepping into situations that could cost them their career.
Compare that to what else is out there. General-purpose LLMs will eagerly fabricate authority to satisfy user prompts. They’ll fill gaps in logic with confident falsehoods, and because they sound smart, they create a dangerous illusion of legal reliability. This isn’t just a technical flaw — it’s a liability minefield.
Lawyers using these tools without oversight aren’t just playing with fire. They’re tossing it into their own filing cabinets.
Bigado is different because it was built by people who understand what malpractice looks like. We know the bar doesn’t care if your AI assistant gave you bad advice. They care that you signed your name to it.
Soon, Bigado will offer a full subscription platform that includes Shepard’s-backed citation validation, motion drafting modules, and integrated court form generation. But we’re not waiting for the tech to be perfect before helping attorneys avoid disaster. We’re already helping them implement automation safely — from intake to scheduling to simple document assembly — while protecting them from the hallucination hazards that plague nearly every other AI platform on the market.
There are plenty of flashy AI tools out there making big promises to law firms. But Bigado isn’t flashy — it’s functional. And in law, functionality is credibility.
If you’re an attorney exploring AI, don’t ask which tool is smartest. Ask which tool understands the consequences. At Bigado, we’ve built every module, every risk flag, and every compliance check with your law license in mind.
Because when the AI hallucinates, it’s your name on the filing. Not the bot’s.
And we won’t let you go down for something you didn’t even know was fake.
Schedule a discovery call and take our pre-assessment survey at Bigado.com/legal-ai. Let’s find out where you are — before we recommend where to go next.