A Global Shift Reaches Nigerian Law

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept—it’s here, shaping industries from finance to healthcare. In the legal profession, AI tools promise unmatched efficiency: instant research, quick contract drafting, and data-driven case predictions.

But alongside these benefits comes a silent risk—one that has already blindsided lawyers abroad and could soon reach Nigerian courtrooms.

Lessons from Abroad: When AI Fails in the Courtroom

The now-infamous Mata v. Avianca case in the United States is a warning every lawyer should heed. Two lawyers, eager to save time, filed a motion containing entirely fake legal citations—invented by AI.

When the truth surfaced, the result was swift and severe:

They faced sanctions from a federal judge. Their professional credibility suffered. Their actions became a cautionary tale worldwide.

And this wasn’t an isolated incident.

Morgan & Morgan lawyers were fined for submitting fabricated authorities generated by AI

Butler Snow attorneys were disqualified from a case after similar AI-related missteps

In each case, the AI produced content that looked authoritative but had no legal basis—a phenomenon known as “hallucination.”

The Nigerian Legal Landscape: Why We Are Not Immune

So far, no Nigerian court has reported a case of AI-generated false citations. But make no mistake—our rapidly growing adoption of AI tools in law means it’s only a matter of time.

Cullen O’Keefe, Director of Research at LawAI, describes the Law-Grounding Problem:

“Our laws only impose duties on persons—humans or recognized legal entities like corporations. AI isn’t a person. So right now, AI can’t literally ‘break the law.’”

In plain terms:

If AI gives false or misleading legal output in Nigeria, the human who used it is accountable.

The law treats AI as a tool, not an independent actor.

This means Nigerian lawyers remain 100% liable for what they file in court—regardless of how “intelligent” their software is.

Two Paths for the Future:

O’Keefe suggests two possible legal approaches:

Fictive Approach – Treat AI’s actions as illegal if a human doing the same thing would be. This keeps accountability squarely on humans.

Actual Approach – Make AI a “legal actor” so duties and liabilities can apply directly to it. This would require sweeping legal reforms and recognition of AI as a juristic person.

The Actual Approach could make sense for regulating advanced AI, but it’s still far from reality in Nigeria. Until then, lawyers must operate as if AI errors are their own errors—because in the eyes of the law, they are.

🛡 Safeguarding Our Practice in the AI Era:

To navigate this new terrain, Nigerian lawyers should adopt three key principles:

Human Oversight First – Use AI to assist, not replace, legal reasoning.

Rigorous Verification – Double-check every AI-generated fact, statute, and precedent before including it in legal documents.

Ethical Transparency – If AI was used in drafting, disclose it where necessary to avoid misleading courts or clients.

These are not just good habits—they are safeguards against professional disaster.

Closing Thoughts:

AI is transforming law, but it has not changed one fundamental truth: the lawyer, not the tool, is responsible for the work submitted.

In the Nigerian legal profession, our most valuable currency is trust—trust from clients, trust from the court, and trust from society. That trust can vanish in a single moment of negligence, especially if we fail to keep AI in check.

The future of law will undoubtedly involve AI, but the future of justice will still depend on human judgment.

About the Author
Adediran Peter Adesina is a Nigerian-based lawyer specializing in litigation, legal advisory, and emerging technology law. He advocates for responsible innovation in the legal sector, helping professionals adapt to the evolving intersection of law and technology.