The specific case or scenario underlying Jefferson's negligence-for-non-use argument remains undisclosed. What is clear is the accelerating pace of judicial intervention. Since January, a U.S. appeals court warned self-represented litigants about AI errors, a state appeals court mandated disclosure when AI causes document errors, and multiple jurisdictions have issued sanctions or bans on unverified AI output.
Attorneys should monitor this emerging tension closely. The legal profession is at an inflection point where "reasonable diligence" may soon require demonstrating competent AI use rather than avoiding it altogether. As courts simultaneously punish AI hallucinations and signal that AI adoption may become a professional standard, practitioners face a narrowing window to develop protocols for responsible AI integration. The question is no longer whether AI belongs in legal practice, but how to use it without exposing clients—or oneself—to liability.