Artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT are increasingly attractive to attorneys facing time pressures and high client expectations. Drafting briefs, motions, or discovery responses can be faster when supported by a generative AI system. But in recent months, courts have penalized attorneys who relied on AI-generated content without proper vetting. A New York federal court fined lawyers who filed a brief containing fabricated case citations, and more recently, a California attorney was sanctioned for filing a response with false authorities generated by ChatGPT CalMatters report.

In the world of software litigation, very few disputes are as deceptively complex as determining whether one program is “substantially similar” to another. Unlike plagiarism in prose, where copied sentences often betray the act, software is written in ways that make verbatim copying unnecessary. A developer may use different variable names, restructure functions, or change comments, while still replicating the heart of another’s work. Courts have developed the concept of substantial similarity to address these situations, looking beyond literal line-by-line matches to evaluate whether the expression of ideas in code has been misappropriated.

AI agents are reshaping the legal profession, offering attorneys powerful tools to streamline workflows, enhance decision-making, and improve client outcomes. These intelligent systems, often powered by advanced algorithms, are not replacing lawyers but amplifying their capabilities. For attorneys seeking to stay competitive, adopting AI agents is a strategic move. Below are the top five ways attorneys can harness AI agents, with a focus on practical applications in litigation and beyond, drawing from insights in recent industry discussions.