Insights

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

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

Integrated across the Google ecosystem, from Gmail to Workspace, Gemini is often the first AI tool a professional tests. In Italian legal practice, however, the same cautions apply as with any generative model: courts have already sanctioned briefs containing AI-invented citations (while the best-known cases involved ChatGPT, hallucinations are a structural limitation common to all models, including Gemini). Here are the 7 mistakes to avoid.

This article also exists for: ChatGPT · Claude

In brief

The use of Gemini in legal practice involves risks such as hallucinations and invented citations. Italian rulings (Trib. Firenze 2025, Trib. Siracusa 2026) classify filing unverified references as gross negligence. The Court of Turin (2025) sanctioned AI-generated pleadings lacking logical coherence under Article 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Practitioners must rely on official databases like Normattiva and Italgiure, ensuring the anonymisation of confidential data. Courts treat failure to verify AI output as actionable negligence and common knowledge, leading to fines exceeding 30,000 euros and disciplinary liability.

  1. 1.

    Trusting case-law citations

    Even with integrated web search, Gemini can cite imprecise or non-existent precedents and present them with apparent authority. Italian case law (Florence 2025, Syracuse 2026) treats filing unverified citations as gross negligence: every reference must be cross-checked against official sources before inclusion in any pleading.

  2. 2.

    Confusing web search with legal research

    Gemini's grounding features query the open web, retrieving content from blogs, legal commentaries, and generalist websites. Professional legal research requires primary sources (such as Normattiva, Italgiure, and the Gazzetta Ufficiale) and demands a clear distinction between in-force, former, and repealed statutory provisions, which generic web searches cannot ensure.

  3. 3.

    Pasting data covered by professional secrecy

    Direct integration with Gmail and Drive increases the risk of inadvertently sharing entire case files. Consumer versions may retain and reuse interactions unless specific privacy controls are configured, whereas enterprise Workspace plans follow dedicated contractual terms. Always review your subscription policies and systematically anonymise confidential and identifying data.

  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.

    Filing a brief without proper professional restructuring

    The Court of Turin (2025) applied sanctions under Article 96 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure against a party whose AI-generated pleadings were deemed devoid of logical coherence. Regardless of the AI model employed, structuring a brief (statement of facts, legal grounds, and relief sought) remains the exclusive duty of counsel.

  5. 5.

    Using it as an up-to-date statutory database

    Given the combination of static training datasets and variable web search results, the wording of a statutory provision provided by Gemini may not reflect the version currently in force. To ensure accuracy, legal practitioners must rely solely on official consolidated databases, noting the relevant date of consultation.

  6. 6.

    Ignoring professional ethics and duties

    Using Gemini does not shift professional liability: the pleading remains the sole responsibility of the signing counsel, who remains bound by ethical duties of competence, diligence, and accuracy. In recent 2026 rulings, awareness of AI hallucinations is treated by courts as common knowledge: failing to verify the generated output constitutes actionable negligence per se.

  7. 7.

    Using the wrong tool for legal work

    Gemini is a valuable tool for drafting summaries, managing correspondence, and general office productivity within Workspace. However, Italian legal research, verified citations, and brief drafting require specialised legal AI tools built specifically on Italian primary sources with automated cross-checks against official databases.

    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 Gemini for legal research?

It may serve as a preliminary exploratory tool, but not as an authoritative source: outputs combine open web content and training data with no guarantee of statutory validity. Every statutory provision and court ruling must be cross-referenced against official sources or verified through dedicated legal tools.

Does Gemini retain the data I enter?

It depends on the plan type: consumer accounts may retain and process conversation history to improve services unless specific opt-out settings are enabled; enterprise Workspace accounts are governed by dedicated terms. For information covered by professional secrecy, prior anonymisation remains an essential precaution.

What sanctions does a lawyer risk for an unchecked AI brief?

Case law from 2025-2026 includes adverse costs orders, aggravated procedural liability under Article 96 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, punitive fines exceeding 30,000 euros, and potential disciplinary sanctions. Courts do not differentiate based on the specific AI model used: liability arises directly from the failure to perform proper human verification.

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