Phone Number: 1-928-337-4225

Post Office Box 1890, St. Johns, Arizona 85936

Menu

Bradley Pew

Bradley Pew

About Bradley Pew

https://www.brownlawarizona.com

Bradley J. Pew is an experienced litigator and appellate attorney whose practice focuses on Arizona water law, complex litigation, and appeals. He has represented clients in high-stakes water rights litigation, negotiated major water rights settlements, and handled appeals before Arizona appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. A graduate of BYU Law School, where he finished first in his class, Brad previously served as a law clerk to Ninth Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee. Visit Brad's full bio here.

Posts by Bradley Pew:

AI in the Courtroom (AI-generated image)

Your AI Chatbot Is Not an Attorney

, , , , , , , , ,

Arizona Court of Appeals decision urges caution when using generative AI in legal briefing.

Artificial intelligence has changed the way many people handle everyday tasks, and the law is no exception. If you are facing a legal problem in Arizona — a will dispute, a landlord issue, a small business question — you may be wondering whether AI tools can help. The short answer is yes, they can. But a recent Arizona case illustrates how AI is a tool, not an attorney, and should be used with caution.

A Cautionary Tale from an Arizona Courtroom.

The case is called Matter of Estate of Acciavatti. It grew out of a family dispute among the adult children after their 93-year-old mother passed away. One of the siblings disagreed with a ruling of the trial court and appealed. He did not hire an attorney. He represented himself. To prepare his written argument to the court— called a brief—he turned to generative AI. That is the type of AI that writes text for you when you type in a request. He used it to research the law and build his case. On its face, this looked efficient: type in your problem, get a polished-looking legal document in return.

But there was a serious problem hiding inside that polished document.

When the judges reviewed the brief, they found that the legal citations—the references to court cases that are supposed to support an argument—were riddled with errors. Of the eight citations in his brief, six were defective. Some pointed to the wrong pages. Some described cases inaccurately. And most alarming of all, two of the cases simply did not exist.

This is a known flaw in AI tools. When an AI does not have a real answer, it sometimes invents one that looks convincing. Lawyers and judges now call these made-up cases “hallucinations.” The Arizona court described unchecked AI bluntly: left unchecked, it is an unreliable narrator and researcher that produces citations to authorities that do not exist.

Here is the part that should stay with anyone thinking about relying on AI in court. The court explained that you can type a simple request into an AI tool and instantly receive a brief filled with plausible-looking legal arguments and citations. If you do not check it carefully, the result can look like competent, convincing legal work, but very often it is not.

In other words, even though the output looks professional, it may not be. The party who filed the problematic brief in Acciavatti admitted to the court that he did nothing to independently confirm the citations were real. He simply trusted AI.

The court did not accept that “the AI did it” as an excuse. It made clear that anyone who files documents with a court is personally responsible for making sure they are truthful and accurate. You cannot hand that responsibility off to a piece of technology. As the court put it, a person may not offload their duty to ensure the truth and accuracy of their filings to any technological tool, including AI.

You may be wondering what happened to the party who filed the brief. Well, he lost. Worse, the court imposed sanctions—a financial penalty—and ordered him to pay part of his sister’s attorneys’ fees and costs. What began as an attempt to save money on legal help ended up costing him, both in his case and in his wallet.

It is worth noting that the court held the self-represented party to the same standard as a trained lawyer. In Arizona, people who represent themselves must follow the same rules as attorneys. They do not get a pass simply because they are not lawyers, and they do not get a pass for mistakes made by an AI tool.

It is also worth noting that Acciavatti is not a unique case. The court cited cases from across the country where parties cited incorrect or hallucinated cases in support of their positions. This case adds to the many cautionary tales from other states. It also shows why it is important to be aware of the possible pitfalls of using AI in the courtroom.

Does AI have any use in the legal field?

The takeaway from Acciavatti is not that one should never use AI. The court itself said AI can be a genuine aid. The takeaway is about how you use it.

Think of AI the way you would think of a calculator or an online map. A calculator is fast and reliable for math, but it cannot tell you whether you are solving the right problem. A map can show you a route, but you still have to notice the road is closed. AI can gather information and draft text quickly, but it cannot exercise judgment. It does not truly understand your situation, it cannot weigh strategy, and it cannot always tell the difference between a real court case and one it invented.

AI can be a helpful tool. It is not a substitute for qualified legal judgment. A skilled attorney does more than find cases. They confirm the law is real and current, apply it to your specific facts, spot risks you would never think to look for, and stand behind their work professionally.

If you are considering using AI for a legal matter, here is a sensible way to think about it:

  • Use AI to learn and prepare. Let it help you understand basic terms, organize your questions, and get oriented before a meeting with a lawyer.
  • Never treat AI output as final legal advice. Anything it tells you about the law needs to be verified by you or a qualified professional.
  • When in doubt, bring a professional into the loop. If you are filing something with a court, signing a contract, or making a decision with real consequences, ask a licensed Arizona attorney to review it.

Used wisely, AI can make legal help more accessible and less intimidating. Used carelessly, it can lead you into exactly the kind of trouble Acciavatti warns of. The smartest approach combines the speed and convenience of new technology with the judgment and accountability of a real professional.

If you have a legal question and are not sure where AI fits in, reach out to a qualified attorney. The right guidance early on can save you far more than it costs.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This post is for general educational purposes and is not legal advice. The image for this article was generated by OpenAI.

Courthouse steps representing appeal

Why Hiring an Appellate Attorney Can Strengthen Your Legal Appeal

, , , , , , , , ,

An appeal is not a second trial. It is a focused legal process that calls for a different set of skills.

If a court decision did not go your way, you may be thinking about an appeal. Or perhaps the decision did go your way and your opponent wants to appeal. Whether you find yourself as an appellant (the party making an appeal) or the appellee (the party defending the trial court’s decision), the appeal process is very different from presenting a case at trial. Appellate courts usually do not hear new witnesses or retry the facts. Instead, judges review the existing court record, written briefs, and legal arguments to decide whether the lower court made an error that affected the result.

That is why an attorney who focuses on appeals can be valuable. Appellate attorneys understand how appellate courts work, which issues matter most, and how to present those issues clearly within strict rules and deadlines.

What Is an Appeal?

An appeal is a request for a higher court to review a decision made by a lower court. The person appealing usually argues that the trial court made an important legal or procedural error. The other party explains why the decision should remain in place. An appeal is not a new trial, and the appellate court generally does not hear new witnesses or accept new evidence. Instead, judges review the existing record and the parties’ written legal arguments, called briefs. Sometimes an appellate court will hold an oral argument, which provides the judges with an opportunity to ask questions and permits the attorneys to clarify any points that need to be clarified.

The appellate court may affirm the lower court’s decision, reverse it, change part of it, or send the case back for more proceedings. Sometimes, a decision by an appellate court can be reviewed by another appellate court, such as the United States Supreme Court or a state’s supreme court.

Can’t All Attorneys Handle Appeals?

Technically, yes—most licensed attorneys are permitted to handle appeals so long as they are admitted to practice before the appellate court hearing the case. But think of attorneys the way you would think of doctors. You wouldn’t go to an ear, nose, and throat doctor for a heart issue. You would go to a cardiologist. Attorneys, like doctors, also tend to focus their practice on specific areas of law or types of practice. If you’re dealing with a divorce or child custody issue, you hire a family law attorney. If you need help drafting a will or trust, you hire an attorney who practices in estate planning. Not all trial attorneys have experience handling appeals, and it is important to make sure that your lawyer is up to the task. Listed below are some of the reasons to consider hiring an appellate attorney to assist with your appeal.

1. Appeals Require a Different Legal Strategy.

Trial lawyers often focus on witnesses, exhibits, and persuading a judge or jury about what happened. Appellate lawyers focus on whether the law was applied correctly and whether the claimed error can support a reversal or another form of relief.

An appellate attorney can study the case with fresh eyes. That distance may help the attorney identify the strongest legal questions, recognize weak arguments, and build a strategy around the issues most likely to matter to appellate judges. This kind of judgment is important because raising every possible issue can make a brief less focused and less persuasive. A trial attorney who lived and breathed the case for months may cling to making the same arguments that lost at the trial court. An appellate attorney can identify which issues have a higher chance of success and set aside arguments that are unlikely to persuade the appellate court.

2. Appellate Attorneys Know How to Work With the Record.

In most appeals, the court considers only material that became part of the lower court record. This may include pleadings, motions, orders, exhibits, and hearing or trial transcripts. New evidence is usually not the answer to a problem on appeal.

Appellate attorneys are trained to review a large record, locate the key rulings, and connect each legal point to the exact place where it was raised and decided. They can also spot preservation problems, such as whether an objection was made at the right time. If an issue was not preserved, the court may review it under a harder standard or may not consider it at all. Knowing these rules can help you avoid making arguments the court will not consider and can help you stop your opponent from raising new arguments for the first time on appeal.

3. Appellate Attorneys Understand Standards of Review.

Every appellate issue is examined through a “standard of review.” This tells the appellate court how much deference to give the lower court. A pure legal question may receive close, independent review. A factual finding or discretionary ruling may receive much more deference.

The standard of review can shape the entire appeal. An experienced appellate attorney will frame each issue with the correct standard in mind, explain why the lower court’s decision fails (or stands) under that standard, and give the court a clear path to the requested outcome. An attorney without appellate experience may fail to recognize the correct standard of review and may put too much emphasis on arguments where the appellate court is likely to defer to the trial court.

4. Strong Brief Writing Is Essential.

Written briefs are the heart of an appeal. A strong brief must explain the relevant facts, identify the legal issues, cite the record, apply controlling law, address the proper standard of review, and state the exact relief requested. It must also follow detailed rules for structure, length, formatting, and filing.

Appellate attorneys practice turning a complicated case into a clear and accurate written argument. They know how to lead judges through the record without hiding difficult facts or overstating the law. Clear writing is not just a style choice; it helps the court understand why the claimed error matters and what the court should do about it.

5. Appellate Rules and Deadlines Are Strict.

Appeals involve exact deadlines and procedural steps. The notice of appeal, record preparation, briefing schedule, certificates, motions, and other filings may all be governed by court rules. The rules of appellate procedures contain many potential pitfalls that an attorney without appellate experience may not appreciate. Missing a deadline or filing the wrong document can limit a party’s options and, in some situations, end the appeal.

An appellate attorney can manage this process, anticipate procedural questions, and make sure the case is presented in the form the court expects. That experience can reduce avoidable risk during an already stressful time.

6. Oral Argument Calls for Focused Preparation.

Not every appeal includes oral argument. When it does, the time is usually short, and judges may interrupt with questions. The goal is not to repeat the brief. It is to answer the court’s concerns directly and explain why the law supports the requested result.

Appellate attorneys prepare by testing the argument, studying difficult points, and practicing concise answers. They are used to shifting quickly between the record, the legal rule, and the practical effect of a decision. Using time wisely during an oral argument requires skill, and an attorney without appellate experience may waste time on arguments that are less important or less likely to persuade the court.

What an Appellate Attorney Can—and Cannot—Do.

No attorney can promise a successful appeal. Appellate courts give weight to many lower-court decisions, and even a legal error may not lead to reversal if it did not affect the outcome. A good appellate attorney will give you a realistic assessment, including the appeal’s strengths, weaknesses, likely costs, and possible results.

The Bottom Line.

An appeal may be one of the last opportunities to change a court decision. Because it depends on a closed record, specialized legal standards, persuasive writing, and strict procedure, it deserves focused appellate skill. Hiring an appellate attorney can give you a clearer strategy, a stronger presentation, and an informed guide through a demanding process.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Appeal rights and deadlines vary by jurisdiction and case. Consult a qualified attorney promptly about your specific situation.

 

Secret Link