WELCOME to Millennial Observatory.
Some names have a way of staying with us, and this column’s title is one of them.
More than a decade ago, when I was the News Editor of Forum-Dimensions, the official student publication of West Visayas State University – Main Campus, Millennial Observatory was the title of my column. At the time, it was a space for observations on the changing realities confronting our generation through the lens of a student. Years later, as I return to writing, it seems fitting to carry that name forward.
Much has changed since those university days. I have entered the legal profession, built a career advising businesses and individuals as an associate at BLBA Law Firm in Makati City, and witnessed firsthand how law, technology, and society continuously shape one another.
Yet the purpose of this column remains largely the same: to observe, to question, and to make sense of the world around us.
Millennials (Gen Y) occupy a unique place in history. We were born into an analog world but came of age in a digital one. We witnessed the rise of the internet, the advent of social media and smartphones, and now find ourselves navigating the age of artificial intelligence, or the Web4 era. We have also lived through remarkable events in history, like the COVID-19 pandemic, the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, the transitions of leadership at the Vatican, and most recently, humanity’s renewed efforts for lunar exploration, to name a few.
It is from this perspective that I hope this column will explore law, business, technology, public affairs, and the many ways these forces influence our lives.
That being said, for my very first installment, there is perhaps no more fitting topic than the question that captured everyone’s interest since ChatGPT became a thing: Can artificial intelligence replace lawyers?
The short answer is no, but the long answer is far more interesting.
The promise of efficiency
Artificial intelligence processes information, and it is very good at its job. It can swiftly review, identify, and summarize data fed into it, making life a hundred and one ways easier for its users. It can even conduct research, draft pleadings, and answer legal questions in a matter of seconds, which is undeniably an outstanding feat.
But efficiency does not equal reliability. This is where the line is drawn, as there are empirical data showing that artificial intelligence “hallucinates”.
AI ‘hallucinates’
AI hallucination refers to providing “textual output that is not consistent with legal facts.” To put it simply, when AI hallucinates, it provides incorrect legal advice.
In the paper titled “Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models” published in Oxford’s Journal of Legal Analysis (Volume 16, Issue 1) dated June 26, 2024, the first systemic evidence of these hallucinations was presented. The results arrived at by using OpenAI’s ChatGPT4 and other public models showed that AI “hallucinate[s] at least 58% of the time, struggle to predict their own hallucinations, and often uncritically accept users’ incorrect legal assumptions.”
There is ongoing research being conducted to measure the hallucination rates of various AI models when presented with legal queries, but the most recent findings[1] show that general models, which are typically the ones readily available to the public, hallucinate at least 58% and could even reach up to 88%, which are alarming rates dare I say.
Lawyers should know better
This has become a real-life problem. Clients go to lawyers with their AI answers that are legally unsound and actively advocate for a legal route that will ultimately lead to a court dismissal or denial.
What’s worse is when lawyers themselves rely on AI-generated answers that cite wrong or non-existent jurisprudence, like what happened in one 2025 case before the Seventh Division of Sandiganbayan.
To be fair, the lawyer who was called out by the Sandiganbayan was not the one who drafted the pleadings in question. She admitted the error on her part, i.e., failure to verify the cited case laws before signing the pleadings, and the court has accepted her apology. This notwithstanding, the case now serves as a cautionary tale for Filipino lawyers.
Reliance on AI-generated legal answers did not only happen in the Philippines. It also happened in the United States.
In the 2023 case of Roberto Mata v. Avianca, Inc. [678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)], an airline passenger (Mr. Mata) sued an air carrier for damages after he allegedly sustained injuries from the metal serving cart, which struck his left knee during his flight from El Salvador to New York City.
Mr. Mata’s attorneys filed a pleading that contained non-existent judicial opinions “with fake quotes and fake citations created by artificial intelligence (AI) tool, resulting in show cause orders and sanctions hearing.” Ultimately, Mr. Mata’s lawyers were slapped with a penalty of US$5,000 for misrepresenting facts and making frivolous legal arguments.
So, we can’t trust lawyers too?
This raises a troubling question. If lawyers have relied on AI-generated answers and even incorporated them into court-bound documents, how can we expect the ordinary Juan de la Cruz, who is more likely to take such answers at face value, to exercise greater caution and scrutiny?
That is, of course, a rhetorical question. If anything, the answer captures precisely why legal matters should not be entrusted entirely to artificial intelligence. The issue is not merely whether AI can provide information. It is whether that information is accurate, applicable, and reliable under the factual circumstances.
Lawyers are trained to verify authorities, evaluate facts, distinguish applicable precedents from inapplicable ones, and exercise sound legal judgment all the time. This is their sworn duty to the public. More importantly, they are accountable for the advice they give. An AI system bears no responsibility for an erroneous answer; a lawyer does. In this sense, the limitations of AI do not diminish the role of lawyers. On the contrary, these highlight their continuing importance.
AI has its pros and cons, and it is the lawyer’s duty to ensure that the cons do not adversely affect their clients.
‘Augmented intelligence’ in the Ph Judiciary
Just last February 18, 2026, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC or the “Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Philippine Judiciary.” In issuing the framework, the High Court formally recognized both the benefits and risks associated with the use of AI.
The framework has several interesting points (fairness and non-discrimination, data privacy, etc.), but all are anchored on a human-centric use of AI.
The High Court stated: “Therefore, human-centered augmented intelligence tools should primarily be utilized as a support or augmentation tool that complements and empowers human cognitive skills, rather than completely supplanting or overriding human judgment.”
It further said: “While human-centered augmented intelligence aims to approximate aspects of human intelligence and cognition, it must always be understood that this should not replace human discernment.”
Discernment
The exercise of discernment is not confined to the courtroom or to judges rendering decisions. It is equally demanded of lawyers in the day-to-day practice of representing their clients.
I believe that a vast majority of lawyers continue to discharge their professional duties with the competence and fidelity consistent with the oath they’ve sworn to uphold. While there are instances where some fall short, the sanctions imposed in such cases underscore an important point, that lapses in professional responsibility do not go unnoticed, and the legal system continues to enforce accountability and correct its course.
To conclude, it is undeniable that AI has its perks. It can draft a pleading, summarize a case, or suggest an argument. But when your life, liberty, or property is at stake, would you really entrust your rights entirely to a machine?
Until a machine can exercise judgment and accept responsibility for its mistakes, AI will remain a tool, not a lawyer./PN
