AI Wrote This For Me … Kind Of, Sort Of

This article by Shannon Talamo was originally published in the Summer 2026 issue of The Federal Lawyer.

It’s confession time. I use AI. Indiscriminately. Enthusiastically. Regularly. I even used it to write this article!

Well, not this article. The earlier version. The one I started after opposing counsel filed a Motion at 11:59 PM on a Friday night that cited entirely to U.S. Sixth Circuit cases even though we are not in the Sixth nor dealing with any of those states’ laws. But sure, sir, “you do you.” And so, as I considered the fact that opposing counsel thought AI (or what this counselor senses was AI) was good enough to file a case in federal court, why wouldn’t it be good enough to write an article for The Federal Lawyer?

The prompt: “You’re a hotshot litigation attorney [note: AI does not judge or question its prompts, use your prompts to boost your ego when you can] tasked with writing the At Sidebar article for the Summer 2026 issue of The Federal Lawyer magazine; although the issue is focused on immigration law, let’s utilize this brief time at the beginning to go a little off the wall. Give me a quirky, humorous column incorporating some of the highlights that people love. Let’s educate folks about something new or a hot topic in the law.”

Here’s the subject of the article it gave me: The Law’s Newest Co-Counsel: Artificial Intelligence, Hallucinating Toasters, and the Eternal Confidence of Lawyers. Why is it that AI’s favorite topic seems to be itself? AI is becoming more human via self-absorption every day.

Un-shockingly, the article was not half bad. Just look at the nuance of this transition away from the immigration law theme into the subject matter of the column: Before we turn, as we must, to the urgent and deeply human work of immigration law, let us pause for a brief visit to one of the legal profession’s newer houseguests: artificial intelligence.

And of course, why wouldn’t it be at least decent? In the legal writing sphere, AI is the greatest plagiarist (and fabricator!) to have ever existed. And it’s growing (nay, improving?) exponentially at a rate that we cannot even comprehend. This publication just had an entire issue devoted to it in Fall 2025, and I would think each author that contributed an article to that volume could now revise their work to incorporate significant advancements with the technology or the growing number of decisions wherein counsel has submitted “ghost” cases or some other form of obvious AI-created dreck that the court cannot ignore. (Alas, I do not think citations to out-of-circuit legitimate cases that lack relevance to issues at hand rise to the level of ipso facto proof of AI use that courts have sanctioned. I think the court just attributes it to poor work product.)

Still, aren’t we sick of the discussion? Isn’t AI mentioned at every CLE we go to in one way or another? “It’s a great tool but not a replacement for attorneys.” “The administrative functions alone will increase our productivity.” “You said the same thing about fax filing!” “Hey, Judy, get in here, I asked Gemini to put some hair on my website photo. It looks pretty good, doesn’t it?” We get it. It’s somehow the best and worst thing, at the same time, that may make our jobs infinitely more efficient and/or effortlessly obsolete. Perfect.

Have I asked AI to draft a memorandum in support based on a prompt and some prevailing jurisprudence, read the response, and thought, “Man, that’s pretty good!” YES. And the confidence just oozes off the AI-generated work, doesn’t it? The sharp language and condescending tone reads as someone who knows they are correct. Of course, have I also started cite-checking the very real cases it references in that argument and thought, “oh, wait, that has absolutely nothing to do with this issue…” “uhhhh, that quote is nowhere to be found in that opinion…” “why are you citing me to a random brief ’s quote of a case rather than to a decision that was quoted?” You’re damn right I have. It would arguably be a disservice to my clients not to experiment with what is out there if it can deliver similar or superior results in a more efficient timeframe, so why not try?

That efficiency matters. It matters for firms, for courts, and especially for clients. The law has never had a surplus of time, money, or clarity. Especially in immigration law—where consequences are immediate and profound, where filings can be document-heavy, and facts can span years, countries, agencies, and multiple languages—any tool that reduces friction deserves serious attention.

[Note: That paragraph above? All AI. But kudos to Claude for working in a little reference to the immigration issue so that this thing doesn’t entirely go off the rails.]

The AI article had a focus, was well constructed, and had a unique voice. It was objectively and perfectly fine. But there’s just something… missing. And, from my perspective, it’s missing in all AI-drafted work. Like an AI generated photo that looks dead behind the eyes, it just lacks that which makes us human. I think it lacks soul.

Define it however you want. Plato compared the soul to a charioteer (reason) steering two horses: a noble white horse (spirit) and an unruly black horse (appetite). A just person is one whose soul is ordered properly: reason rules, spirit supports reason, and appetite obeys. In Christianity, the soul is usually understood as the immaterial, spiritual aspect of the human person—the part that relates to God and continues beyond bodily death. “The Simpsons,” through Bart selling his own, portrays the soul as the part of him that gives life its depth, warmth, and moral reality as well as allows automatic doors to recognize you when you approach their threshold. Some just define soul as Al Green on vinyl. However you define it, I can tell you one thing: when asked it if had a soul, ChatGPT told me, and I quote, “no, I do not have a soul.” Like pearls before swine.

It’s that indefinable spirit behind the writing. The advocacy that the profession requires of us for each of our clients that should be reflected in our work. It’s that “je ne sais quoi.” And for whatever reason, you can feel it when you read something that may be technically proficient but totally bereft of soul. To appropriate a partial quote from Justice Potter Stewart, I cannot put a word on what is missing in these AI driven works, “but I know it when I see it.” And that’s really the beauty of the practice and part of what makes it so special: the inherent human element that each individual attorney provides to the work. Whether you’re dealing with a polished practitioner of many decades or an attorney who decided on a whim, “C’est la vie, I guess now’s as good as time as any to be a litigator,” you see that glimpse of humanity in the writing that reminds you of the person behind the words. I find it so uniquely satisfying and so acutely disappointing when it appears to be AI on the other side.

Still, one suspects lawyers will adapt the way lawyers always do— with skepticism, enthusiasm, committee reports, CLE panels, and at least one partner who insists the entire thing is nonsense before quietly asking an associate to show him how to use it for deposition outlines. This is our way. We resist the future until the future starts improving billing hygiene. [Note: Again, this paragraph is all AI. Opposing counsel just filed a Motion in Limine against my expert that completely contradicts his own experts’ opinions while providing quotes that do not exist in cases that do not apply. Well played, counselor.]

Of course, maybe this unsolicited advice is going to fall on deaf ears. I get it. In the time it took to write this article, I created a law firm, an attorney, a website, and a theme song to boot (visit the Ain’t I Cool Law Firm at www.aicoollaw.com). How are we mere humans supposed to compete with that? Again, it ain’t perfect, but it’s certainly better than “mid.” As we barrel through the ever-advancing, exponentially increasing world of AI in the legal field, use the tools at your fingertips and figure out how best to utilize the technology to benefit your work. But please do not settle for “fine” and forget about the soul that needs to be behind the work. [Note: This article may have been written by AI… or maybe not, at this point I can’t keep things straight.]