How to Detect and Reduce AI Hallucinations to Build Trust – Q2 2026 Facts & Findings
A Practical Guide For Paralegals Reviewing Depositions, Documents, and Summaries

Written by Kim Bookout

Generative AI is speeding up litigation support work, particularly as paralegals manage growing data volumes, emerging data types, and evolving client expectations. As AI becomes part of legal workflows, responsibility for accuracy remains firmly with the people using it. AI can assist with summarization, extraction, and analysis, but its outputs must still be reviewed to ensure they accurately reflect the underlying record. For paralegals—long the fact-checkers of the legal office—understanding how to detect and reduce AI errors is becoming a core professional skill.

Cheryl Nodarse, ACP, president of NALA — The Paralegal Association, recently shared her thoughts with Law.com:

“We’ve all heard of the hallucinations that can result from an artificial intelligence search, and particularly in legal drafting, those hallucinations can be legal malpractice… Do we see it as threatening the paralegals’ role? Absolutely not. But do we see it as changing the paralegals’ role? Absolutely.”1

AI is not replacing paralegals, but it is reshaping expectations. Paralegals are increasingly asked to work confidently alongside AI while maintaining accuracy, defensibility, and professional standards. By learning how to spot hallucination red flags in AI outputs, efficiently validate results, and select the right tools, paralegals can future-proof their skill set in the AI era.

WHY AI STILL NEEDS HUMAN REVIEW

AI performs well at summarizing dense material, extracting structured data, and generating first drafts. However, certain tasks may be more challenging for AI and require human assistance. For example:

  • Multi-answer extraction (e.g., list all warranty-related clauses)
  • Interpreting legal terms of art that are not spelled out verbatim
  • Generating tables or structured data from multiple documents
  • Pulling relevant facts across long or varied transcript sections

These are the situations where hallucinations or omissions may be more likely. Treat the output as an initial pass, not a finished product.

CALIBRATING REVIEW BASED ON RISK

When using AI-assisted content, it is important to calibrate the level of review to the purpose and risk profile of the work product. Not every output requires the same degree of scrutiny. Content that will be filed with the court, cited in a brief, or relied on for substantive legal analysis should be reviewed meticulously—and, where appropriate, revisited more than once—for accuracy, completeness, and proper authority.

Lower-risk outputs, such as internal emails or informal collaboration, may reasonably require a lighter review. Being intentional about how AI-generated content will be used helps paralegals focus their time and attention where it matters most, balancing efficiency with professional responsibility.

COMMON RED FLAGS FOR AI HALLUCINATIONS

Paralegals can apply a simple mental checklist when reviewing AI-generated work by looking for these:

  1. Perfectly confident statements without citations: If an answer sounds definitive but lacks a clear citation, assume it needs verification.
  2. Facts that appear too broad or too specific: AI may generalize (“the witness admitted fault”) or invent details (“the incident occurred at 5:17 p.m.”) based on patterns rather than the actual record. Check the surrounding transcript or document section to confirm whether the details are supported, overstated, or missing nuance.
  3. Direct quotes: Some AI tools struggle to reproduce quotes verbatim. They may paraphrase content and present the resulting text in quotation marks. All quoted material should be cross-checked against the original document.
  4. Lists that feel incomplete: If you expect an AI prompt to produce multiple items—claims, dates, issues, parties, objections—but the output only returns one or two, additional review is warranted.
  5. Misuse of legal terminology: AI may confuse similar concepts or blend definitions across jurisdictions or contexts. Review outputs to verify contextual accuracy.
HOW PARALEGALS CAN VALIDATE AI OUTPUTS EFFICIENTLY
  1. Review outputs, focusing on higher-risk areas: Always review outputs in their entirety. While a full read-through is essential, paralegals can prioritize additional attention on areas more prone to error. As outlined above, this includes direct quotations, legal terms, numerical data, and information that references multiple documents.
  2. Ask the AI to show its work: Re-prompting with a new variation of your request that asks for more detail, such as “Show the exact transcript lines supporting each point,” can help identify inaccuracies.
  3. Test the result with alternative prompts: Asking the same question more simply or explicitly (“List all mentions of…”) can reveal gaps or inconsistencies.
  4. Verify across the source document: For summaries, skim the transcript sections the AI claims are key. For extraction tasks, search your document manually for the terms the AI may have missed.
  5. Escalate ambiguity: If something feels off, flag it early. AI errors often compound when reused in downstream drafts or filings.
CHOOSING TOOLS THAT REDUCE HALLUCINATIONS

Not all AI tools perform equally well in litigation workflows. When evaluating them, paralegals should look for:

  1. Built-in citations: Tools that link statements directly to source material make validation faster and more reliable.
  2. Clear disclosures when information is unavailable: High-quality systems will say “I don’t have enough information” instead of guessing.
  3. Purpose-built litigation features: AI tools designed specifically for litigation workflows—like creating deposition summaries, preparing case chronologies, and analyzing transcripts—tend to produce more accurate and useful outputs when compared to general-purpose chatbots.2
  4. Transparency about data sources and privacy: Paralegals should understand the basics of AI defensibility.3 It is also important to know what data the AI model is trained on—public data, firm data, case data, or a combination—and how securely client materials are handled.
  5. Guardrails and review workflows: Look for platforms that are designed to support AI best practices, offer structured extraction, and integrate quality-control steps.
WHY UPSKILLING MATTERS FOR PARALEGALS

AI is reshaping legal roles throughout the industry. Paralegals who understand AI’s strengths and limitations can deliver value, gain recognition, and elevate their role, helping keep their team efficient and compliant. AI skills to focus on for career development include:

  • Identifying high-value AI use cases
  • Developing prompts that improve accuracy
  • Validating outputs efficiently
  • Selecting the best AI tool for tasks
  • Leveraging AI for creative problem-solving

The goal is not to become an AI engineer. It is to extend existing strengths—precision, consistency, and integrity—into AI-supported tasks.

CONCLUSION

AI can significantly accelerate and enhance document review and deposition summarization, but it requires careful oversight. Paralegals are uniquely positioned to provide that safeguard. By recognizing hallucination patterns, validating outputs, and selecting reliable tools, paralegals can help ensure AI improves legal accuracy rather than undermining it.

RESOURCES

1 – https://www.law.com/2025/10/02/paralegals-in-the-ai-era-replacement-or- upskilling/?slreturn=20260302152521
2 – https://www.opus2.com/ai-for-deposition-transcript-management/
3 – https://www.opus2.com/defensible-ai-in-legal-practice/

Kim Bookout is a Director of Solution Consulting at Opus 2, a leading legal software and services provider. Relying on 20 years of experience as a senior litigation paralegal, she is committed to finding the best technologies to help law firms and their clients develop optimal outcomes.

icon Categories