The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Generative AI, Plagiarism, and Copyright Infringement in Legal Documents
Open accessAbstract
Lawyers are increasingly using generative AI in their legal practice, especially for drafting motions and other documents they file with courts. As they use this new technology, many questions arise, especially surrounding lawyers’ ethical duties with respect to the use of generative AI. Headlines have been dominated by lawyers who have been disciplined for failure to confirm the output of generative AI systems, wherein the system hallucinates fake cases that the lawyers submit to opposing counsel and the court. Although that problem is certainly noteworthy, there are other potential issues for lawyers that have been more overlooked. The focus of this article is on two intriguing intellectual property questions that emerge when lawyers choose to use large language models like ChatGPT. First, might these lawyers be engaging in actionable, discipline-worthy plagiarism? This is unlikely to be the case, for several reasons, chief among them that copying and using boilerplate forms is standard practice in law. Nonetheless, courts and disciplinary agencies have reached surprisingly different conclusions on what counts as plagiarism in the practice of law and whether it is permissible. Any lawyer using generative AI should bear this in mind. Second, could these lawyers potentially be liable for copyright violations? Although this outcome may be unlikely, it is absolutely possible especially if lawyers do not understand that these tools can reproduce copyrighted text verbatim or if c…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“First, LLMs' 'memorize' parts of their training data which they then regurgitate without referencing a source [7], pp.52-53), leading to the displacement of ideas from their source and their possibly unwarranted intermixing.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [7]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mollema, W. J. T. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00801-w · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Cyphert, A. B.
- Affiliations
- West Virginia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cyphert, Amy B.
- Venue
- Minnesota journal of law, science & technology
- Publisher
- University of Minnesota
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 49
- ISSN
- 1552-9533 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-9541
- OpenAlex
- W4401956587
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 1.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Minnesota journal of law science & technology (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
- Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Education and Practice Innovations
- Keywords
- generative AI, plagiarism, copyright infringement, legal ethics, large language models, ChatGPT, legal drafting, AI hallucination, legal liability, intellectual property
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Generative AI, Plagiarism, and Copyright Infringement in Legal Documents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.24926/15529541.3896
- The paper
- Cyphert, A. B. (2024). Generative AI, Plagiarism, and Copyright Infringement in Legal Documents. Minnesota journal of law, science & technology. https://doi.org/10.24926/15529541.3896