Artificial Intelligence is affecting every profession and area of modern life. North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Phil Berger, Jr. joined Carolina Journal to discuss the impact of AI on the future of law in North Carolina from legal deserts to faulty filings.
Courts nationwide, including in Raleigh, are seeing a surge in faulty legal filings as AI becomes a common tool for litigants. The trend highlights both the potential benefits and risks AI poses to the legal profession and the justice system.
So far in 2025, there were 372 legal decisions involving AI-generated content that was fabricated or inaccurate. Most of the cases involved pro se litigants who represented themselves and accounted for 223 of the 372 filings. Legal professionals contributed 144 instances of work with AI-generated errors.
When asked about growing misuse of AI by lawyers, Berger said the technology is not the sole problem.
“There are always lazy lawyers; there are lazy people in every profession,” he said. “I see the types of people who will just automatically rely on Westlaw as an answer without really reading the cases or analyzing the cases as the same types of practitioners who would just ask AI to give them an analysis or a brief in a case and not take the time to read, understand, or analyze what they’re doing.”
Berger emphasized the value of non-generative tools and the responsibility lawyers owe to their clients and the practice of law.
“If there is a benefit to using [AI], if it allows you to understand an issue or analyze an issue properly for the court, I think that can be helpful,” he said.
Jeanette Doran, the I. Beverly Lake, Jr. chair in constitutional studies and senior counsel for the John Locke Foundation, explained the obligations attorneys face when using AI.
“A lawyer must check every fact, every legal citation, and every recommendation before filing anything with a court,” she said. “Lawyers must also protect client confidentiality, which means they cannot share sensitive information with AI tools that may not keep it secure. AI might be a powerful assistant, but it cannot replace human judgment or accountability.”
The American Bar Association issued guidance on AI use in August 2024. ABA Formal Opinion 512 reminds attorneys that AI-generated work must be verified for accuracy, supervised appropriately, and kept confidential. Failing to follow these principles can result in professional sanctions.
AI may also offer broader access to legal information through unofficial counsel. Individuals can obtain guidance or assistance at little or no cost, encouraging more attempts at self-representation. Berger said AI can help pro se litigants present their arguments more clearly, making their often “indiscernible” filings more understandable to courts.
At the same time, he noted that hallucinated cases create additional burdens for judges.
“When you are talking about underrepresented, pro se litigants, I think there is an obligation then on the court to verify everything, which becomes, in some respects, more onerous on the court,” Berger said. “But, if the goal is to have meaningful arguments from all populations, whether you can afford an attorney or not, I think this provides an excellent resource for those pro se litigants and underrepresented litigants.”
Expanded access to justice is particularly important in rural communities that are often described as “legal deserts.” These areas have fewer than one attorney per 1,000 residents. According to the ABA, 45 out of 100 North Carolina counties fall into this category.
Berger explained that the lack of attorneys in these regions creates opportunities for young lawyers to establish practices and serve their communities. If legal services remain difficult to access, residents may increasingly rely on AI for advice.
“Right now, we have legal deserts where we have young attorneys who want to build a practice, be leaders in their communities, to go and practice and really provide needed services in these areas,” Berger said. “The failure of the [state] bar to send individuals into these legal deserts could potentially lead to more reliance on AI in those communities.”
Doran said AI might ease some of the strain caused by legal deserts but warned that many rural residents lack the internet access needed to use AI tools effectively.
“AI has the potential to lessen the impact of legal deserts, but technology alone cannot solve the deeper structural challenges that keep these communities underserved,” Doran said. “Nearly one in six North Carolinians cannot purchase a fiber internet plan. If AI-powered legal tools require strong internet connections, they could end up helping those who already have the most access while leaving the most vulnerable residents behind.”
Berger said the profession should remain cautious about broader risks. He noted that firms are already debating whether AI could displace first year associates and said increased reliance on AI could further weaken the presence of attorneys in rural communities.
Despite these concerns, Berger said AI offers meaningful benefits to the legal profession when used correctly. The limits of the technology, especially in the legal sphere, depend largely on whether the public trusts what AI generates.