Summary: AI can make legal knowledge more accessible and organized, but without discipline and experience it often misleads. While it may help explain concepts like custody standing in Texas, AI lacks context, nuance, and updates to the law. Winning a case requires more than AI—it requires judgment, training, and expertise.
“I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power you’re using, it didn’t require any discipline to attain it…you read what others had done and you took the next step…you didn’t earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don’t take any responsibility…for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had…you’re selling it, you want to sell it…Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
— Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: Lunch Debate scene
AI and the Jurassic Park Problem
When I think of Artificial Intelligence and its pitfalls I think of Ian Malcolm bemoaning Jurassic Park as a monumental mistake over a lunch of Sea Bass. He talks of the extreme hubris—excessive self-confidence—that exists when “new” knowledge is yielded to achieve flashy results, but is yielded without discipline, without the experience of trial and error, and without consideration of ethical pitfalls.
Was he right in his warning? Well, we all know how Jurassic Park turned out. OK, so maybe genetically engineered dinosaurs and the hazards of AI are not exactly the same thing, but for my part Ian’s quote is spot on when it comes to the use of AI in the legal profession.
The Rise of AI in the Courtroom
The prevalence of AI and its use is pervasive in society, and this extends to both professional and amateur courtroom warriors. Anyone can wield it, from seasoned attorneys that want a shortcut, to pro se (self-represented) litigants that want to cobble together legal arguments and motions on-the-fly to save a few bucks.
Any search engine has an “AI Mode,” and anyone can use ChatGPT to become educated on complex legal issues. And they do. My docket is littered with opposing parties and even clients that use AI to cite case law, ask questions, and generally become much more knowledgeable than they might otherwise be, all because of AI.
When “Tidy” Arguments Go Wrong
But just like John Hammond used new science to create incredible dinosaurs that ultimately ran amuck, AI users are using AI technology to create buttoned-up and tidy arguments and logic that often runs amuck from…well, good argument and sound logic.
Several news stories of late have detailed how attorneys have used AI to their detriment; they’ve cited appellate law or made legal arguments that simply don’t exist—known as generative AI “hallucinations.”
The Real Problem: Hubris, Not AI
AI brain farts aside, this is not what I’m talking about. Ian’s quote underscores that the problem with AI is not that AI is inherently bad or faulty or wrong, just as the science behind Jurassic Park wasn’t bad or faulty or wrong.
It’s the use of AI that is extremely problematic. Hubris is the problem, and over-confidence in AI is not surprising. AI is flashy and tidy and to-the-point. Why wouldn’t we rely on it?
A Real Example: Custody Standing in Texas
For instance, I searched on August 15, 2025 on Google AI Mode the following:
“What does it take to have standing to file a custody case in Texas?”
This is a rather broad question, not too dissimilar to what a layperson would ask Google, if they even know what standing means. I received a very organized reply from AI Mode.
It lists several individuals that have the right to file suit for custody in Texas. It does state “generally” the listed individuals have standing, so it isn’t to be taken as gospel. That’s good.
But I, as a family lawyer, immediately noticed one of the bases for standing—actual care, control and possession of the child for at least six months by a non-foster parent—is very misleading.
Why? This basis for standing has been significantly altered by the legislature, starting September 1, 2025. Relatives and certain other individuals, starting September 1, 2025, can’t rely on this basis for standing. How would you know that based on the AI result? You wouldn’t.
This is just one of countless examples of how AI misleads.
Standing is not the same as custody
Ok, you say, but that basis for standing exists now even if it won’t in 15 days. So, chalk one up for AI? No.
This result is also misleading for many other reasons. Standing just gets your foot in the door as a non-parent suing for custody. Unless you knew this beforehand, this AI result would give you the false impression that standing is equivalent to custody.
This isn’t true. In Texas, a non-parent must show a parent to be unfit, a very high burden, with a lot of wrinkles developed by many appellate cases.
AI, in giving users a better understanding of standing, does little to help users understand how they can actually win custody. Then there is the whole issue of what “actual care, control and possession” means, which is defined in the law…and AI doesn’t help define these terms.
Discipline, Experience, and Context
This example demonstrates how users of AI in the legal context lack the discipline and experience to use AI output wisely.
Any lawyer with discipline would know that the law changes often and would have the urge to check their research software or their new codebook for changes. A non-lawyer might lack the discipline to do this, not to mention has little experience looking at statutes and legislation.
Also, a lawyer with experience in family law knows that standing is just one battle in the war non-parents must wage to obtain custody.
Final Thoughts
AI is improving the public’s knowledge of the law. But knowledge is no substitute for discipline and experience. Without discipline and experience, AI users know just enough to think they can represent themselves.
As Mark Twain allegedly said:
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
This is hubris and the enemy of good legal representation.
Take a lesson from Mark Twain and Ian Malcolm. Use AI, yes, but in context. And before you consider representing yourself because you can, consider what Ian told John Hammond and stop to consider if you should.
Protect Your Case with Real Expertise
If you’re facing a legal battle, don’t rely on AI alone. It can be a tool, but it can’t replace the training, discipline, and judgment of an experienced attorney. Before you step into the courtroom with an AI-generated argument, talk to the experienced lawyers at TLC Law, PLLC in Tyler, who can apply the law correctly, anticipate challenges, and advocate for your best interests. Your case deserves more than shortcuts. It deserves expertise. Contact us today to get started!