Insights

7 mistakes lawyers make with Claude (and Italian rulings on generative AI)

3 min read · Updated April 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

Anthropic's Claude is valued by professionals for its writing quality and ability to handle long documents. However, Italian legal practice demands the same caution as any generative model: courts have already sanctioned lawyers for submitting AI-invented citations (while the most publicised cases involved ChatGPT, hallucinations affect all models, including Claude). Here are the 7 mistakes to avoid.

This article also exists for: ChatGPT · Gemini

In brief

Using Anthropic's Claude in legal practice requires caution to avoid hallucinations and judicial sanctions. Italian case law (Florence 2025, Syracuse 2026) defines submitting unverified citations as gross negligence, requiring validation via Italgiure. The Court of Turin (2025) sanctioned AI-generated petitions lacking logical coherence under Art. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. GDPR compliance and data anonymization remain the attorney's responsibility. Statutory updates must be verified through Normattiva or the Gazzetta Ufficiale, as AI models cannot replace the lawyer's professional qualification of facts and trial strategy.

  1. 1.

    Trusting case-law citations blindly

    Like any language model, Claude can produce plausible but non-existent judgment references and confirm them when prompted again. Italian case law (Florence 2025, Syracuse 2026) qualifies submitting unverified citations as gross negligence: every reference must be checked on Italgiure or via tools offering direct source verification.

  2. 2.

    Filing a brief without proper legal restructuring

    Claude's fluent prose can be misleading, making a generated brief appear ready when it is not: the Court of Turin (2025) sanctioned a party under Art. 96 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure for an AI-generated petition found to lack logical coherence. Structuring a brief, from facts and legal grounds to final requests, remains the sole responsibility of counsel.

  3. 3.

    Pasting data covered by professional secrecy

    Even when providers state they do not train models on business plan data, GDPR compliance remains the controller's responsibility: legal basis, cross-border transfers, and retention policies. Check the terms of your Anthropic subscription and anonymise case files prior to any upload.

  4. Apply this research directly with edit.legal

    Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. Try edit.legal for free, no credit card.

    Try edit.legal
    4.

    Using the model as an up-to-date statutory database

    Italian law evolves faster than AI training data: recent reforms, corrective decrees, and repeals may be missing. To verify current legislation, rely on Normattiva, the official journal (Gazzetta Ufficiale), or professional databases providing consolidated texts updated to the relevant date.

  5. 5.

    Assuming a large context window is sufficient for legal analysis

    While Claude can process lengthy documents, reading text does not equal legal qualification: identifying material facts, applying the burden of proof, and determining trial strategy remain the lawyer's task. Use AI summaries as an overview of the file, never as a substitute for substantive legal analysis.

  6. 6.

    Overlooking ethical and professional duties

    Legal responsibility for a brief lies entirely with the signing attorney, regardless of the tools used: duties of competence, diligence, and candour toward the court cannot be delegated. Recent case law considers the occurrence of AI hallucinations a matter of common knowledge; failing to verify sources therefore constitutes actionable negligence.

  7. 7.

    Using a general-purpose tool for legal research and drafting

    Claude is excellent for drafting, refining style, and summarising provided documents. However, performing legal research, verifying citations, and drafting briefs backed by official sources require specialised software integrated with Italian legal databases: fluent prose can never replace verifiable sources.

    Related practical guide: How to draft a reasoned legal opinion with AI

References: Trib. Firenze, marzo 2025Trib. Torino, settembre 2025Trib. Siracusa, febbraio 2026art. 96 c.p.c.

Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAM

Frequently asked questions

Can I use Claude to write a court brief?

Yes, for preparing an initial draft or refining writing style; no for legal research and statutory referencing, unless rigorously verified afterwards. The legal principles established by Italian courts regarding generative AI apply to all models: what ultimately matters is the thorough review conducted by the attorney prior to filing.

Does Claude train its models on uploaded data?

Terms of service vary depending on the plan type and are subject to updates. Although Anthropic's business plans state that user data is not utilized for model training, verifying current terms and conducting GDPR compliance assessments remain the firm's responsibility. In any case, anonymising case data prior to processing is an indispensable best practice.

Is it better to use Claude or specialised legal software?

These tools serve distinct purposes: Claude is suited for drafting, refining, and analyzing user-provided text, whereas specialized legal software is designed for researching certified databases, verifying citations, and drafting briefs. Many law firms integrate both solutions, applying each to its respective strengths.

Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal

Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.

Try edit.legal for free