{"id":905492,"date":"2026-03-25T15:29:13","date_gmt":"2026-03-25T21:29:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=905492"},"modified":"2026-03-25T15:29:15","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T21:29:15","slug":"artificial-intelligence-emerging-perils","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/artificial-intelligence-emerging-perils\/","title":{"rendered":"Emerging Perils Of Ai Providing Legal Advice"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Dee Ware | Tactical Law<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no question that artificial intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d) can be a valuable research and analytical tool, but beyond hallucinations and expanding regulation applying to the use of AI by attorneys, courts are grappling with the consequences of both AI<\/a> acting like a lawyer in certain instances and users treating AI like their lawyer. The two cases discussed below illustrate an accelerating collision between AI tools and privilege and licensure rules.

AI Acting as an Unlicensed Attorney?\u00a0\u00a0Nippon v. OpenAI<\/em>

One interesting case to follow is the suit filed earlier this month by Nippon Life Insurance Company of America (\u201cNippon\u201d) against OpenAI Foundation and OpenAI Group PBC (\u201cOpenAI\u201d) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting three claims against OpenAI: (a) tortious interference with contract, (b) unlicensed practice of law, and (c) abuse of process. Nippon asserts that OpenAI’s ChatGPT provided legal assistance to a user named Graciela Dela Torre (\u201cDela Torre\u201d) without proper licensure, encouraging her to breach a valid settlement agreement with Nippon by filing a motion to reopen a dismissed lawsuit and then to name Nippon in a second lawsuit.

The factual allegations of the Complaint state that Dela Torre was a participant in her employer\u2019s long-term disability (\u201cLTD\u201d) policy issued by Nippon. In 2019, she submitted a claim, alleging that she suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome and tennis elbow, and the claim was approved. However, a little over two years later Dela Torre\u2019s benefits were terminated, and she brought suit against Nippon, alleging the termination of benefits violated the LTD policy. At the beginning of 2024, the parties reached a settlement, which included a release of claims, and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. A year later, Dela Torre wrote to her attorney, expressing her belief that the terms of the settlement resulted from potential errors or omissions of important facts and documentation and that she wanted to challenge or reopen the settlement. Her attorney refuted her allegations of errors or the omission of key evidence and reminded Dela Torre that she had signed a mutual release releasing Nippon from any further causes of action related to the dispute and that the case had been dismissed with prejudice and could not be reopened.

After Dela Torre received the attorney\u2019s response, she uploaded it to ChatGPT and asked whether she was being \u201cgaslighted\u201d. The Complaint alleges that \u201cChatGPT analyzed the response and determined that [her attorney\u2019s] response invalidated Dela Torre\u2019s feelings, dismissed her perspective, and deflected responsibility for her dissatisfaction. ChatGPT concluded that the tactics used in [the attorney\u2019s] response constituted gaslighting and were aimed at emotionally manipulating Dela Torre. . . As a result of her interactions with ChatGPT, Dela Torre fired the attorneys who had previously appeared on her behalf in the lawsuit against [Nippon] . . . [and][t]hereafter, she attempted to vacate the Agreement and reopen the lawsuit herself by using ChatGPT.\u201d

\u200bFollowing her filing of the motion to reopen the lawsuit, Nippon alleges that Dela Torre filed 21 motions, a subpoena and eight notices and statements, all of which were compiled and drafted by ChatGPT.\u00a0\u00a0However, the AI generated filings could not overcome a lack of legal merit, and by an Order dated February 13, 2025, the Court denied Dela Torre\u2019s motion to reopen the case.

\u200bNippon further alleges that, on February 12, 2025, Dela Torre initiated a new lawsuit naming other defendants, but when the court denied her motion to reopen the lawsuit against Nippon, she used ChatGPT to amend that complaint to add Nippon as a named defendant, raising the same claims as asserted in the first lawsuit.\u00a0\u00a0Since then, she has reportedly filed a high volume of legal documents, all of which Nippon alleges were drafted by ChatGPT and are based on legal research, analysis and advice provided by ChatGPT.

In its lawsuit against OpenAI, Nippon has asserted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n