A Stanford study found that leading commercial legal-research AI tools hallucinated between 17% and 33% of the time. A law firm that relied on such a tool without checking could give a client wrong advice and face a malpractice claim. (The study is confirmed; the client-loss case is hypothetical.)
Supports underwriting questions on human verification workflows.
This is an educational research summary built from public information. Allegations in pending cases are unproven, and the insurance notes above are for discussion, not coverage advice. Whether any policy responds depends on its specific wording, exclusions, endorsements, the facts, and applicable law.