Counsel to Counsel
Traditional Legal Analysis for lawyers facing AI challenges
The primary focus of Stephen Brunette's 45-year career as a lawyer has been legal research and analysis of complex legal issues. His skills were honed early in his career while he was employed for 10 years by a major legal publisher, during which he created and published several legal articles and prepared several Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs for various entities. These foundational skills were sharpened as he turned his focus to estate, probate, and general civil litigation and appeals in Colorado's state and federal courts.
This strong foundation in traditional legal research and writing has proven invaluable in spading AI-generated pleadings to assure citations and arguments are grounded in fact and law, rather than AI creative speculation. Mr. Brunette's practice is focused on providing Counsel to Counsel services to lawyers in litigation and appeals in which AI generated arguments or citations are suspected.
A person unfamiliar with the limitations of GAI (Generative Artificial Intelligence) tools can
unwittingly rely on them to produce what appears to be text filled with citations to legal
authorities. But these citations may be fictitious. Case names and citations that a GAI tool
makes up are known as "hallucinations." Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 102 F.4th 1208, 1230
(11th Cir. 2024) (Newsom, J., concurring) (A GAI tool "'hallucinates' when, in response to a user's
query, it generates facts that, well, just aren't true — or at least not quite true."); Matthew R. Caton,
Lawyers: Rely on 'Generative AI' at Your Peril, 39 Me. Bar J. 48, 48 (2024) (A GAI hallucination
"occurs when an AI system provides information that is inaccurate or, more bluntly, fake.").
Alim Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128, P2, 564 P. 3d 1117, 1119-1120
(Colo. App. 2024).