DIZON.LAW AI Practice Library · Volume 01
AI in the Defender's Office
A National Field Guide for State and Federal Public DefendersThis preview is drawn from the working first edition. Pagination and wording may change before publication.From the front matter
A national field guide
This book is educational material for lawyers. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not substitute for the rules, orders, and guidance of the reader's own jurisdiction.
This is a national practice guide for state and federal public defenders. It does not assume that the reader practices in New York or any other particular jurisdiction. Local examples are identified as examples, not as default law.
The book carries forward verified research and tested teaching methods without adopting the geographic scope of any source program.
Chapter 1 · The Enforcement Era
The consequences are already national
The modern enforcement wave became visible in New York and did not stay there. In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., two attorneys filed a brief citing six judicial decisions that did not exist. Judge Castel imposed one $5,000 joint-and-several penalty.
No single jurisdiction supplies a governing rule for every reader. The applicable authority depends on the lawyer's license, court, case, and procedural posture. What travels nationally is the failure pattern: generated material reaches consequential work without an independent check against the authority or record.
For defenders, the direct warning is United States v. Farris. Appointed counsel filed fabricated quotations and misrepresented holdings. The consequences reached the appointment, public compensation, the appeal, and continuity of representation.
Chapter 1 · The Enforcement Era
Responsibility never left the lawyer
A vendor, model, assistant, employee, or contractor may contribute to a draft; none of them displaces counsel's obligation to ensure that the final work is accurate and authorized.
The task decision asks whether counsel understands the tool well enough for the assigned use. The confidentiality decision asks whether the particular information may lawfully and ethically enter the particular service. The authority decision asks what source controls the answer. The verification decision asks what independent check proves the result before the work leaves counsel's control.
Whatever the workflow, every material proposition in a filed document should preserve a route to the authority or record item that permits counsel to verify it without returning to the generating system for reassurance.
End of preview
Continue with the complete edition.
The complete book includes the national sanctions survey, defender workflows, government-AI challenges, office governance, a four-exercise workbook, and the wholly fictional source packet.
View purchase options