In the evolving landscape of legal writing and citation, the introduction of Rule 18.3 in the 22nd edition of The Bluebook has ignited a storm of criticism among legal scholars and practitioners alike. This new rule aims to provide a standardized format for citing content generated by artificial intelligence (AI), marking a significant shift in citation methodology. While The Bluebook traditionally serves as a cornerstone for legal citation, the reception of Rule 18.3 suggests it may have missed the mark in addressing key issues surrounding AI integration in legal practice.
Understanding Rule 18.3
Rule 18.3 is subdivided into three distinct sections:
- Rule 18.3(a) addresses citations to large language models (LLMs), focusing on text outputs.
- Rule 18.3(b) pertains to AI-generated search results from AI-powered search engines.
- Rule 18.3(c) deals with non-textual AI-generated content, such as images.
Each subsection prescribes specific citation requirements, with an overarching necessity for the author to save and store a screenshot of the AI output in PDF format. This rigorous approach aims to ensure accountability and traceability of AI-generated information.
Requirements for Citations
- For LLMs (18.3(a)): Citing authors must provide details such as the author of the prompt, the model name and version, the exact prompt text, submission date, and a note on where the PDF is stored.
- For Search Results (18.3(b)): Citations must include the search engine name, the query text, result counts, the date the search occurred, and a PDF storage note.
- For AI-Generated Content (18.3(c)): Here, citation should align with the respective subrule, while acknowledging that the content was AI-generated and indicating the model used.
While these detailed guidelines aim to standardize AI citations, critics argue they raise significant concerns.
Critiques of the New Rule
Ambiguous Purpose: When to Cite AI?
A central criticism is the vague stipulation surrounding when AI citations are appropriate. Legal scholar Jessica R. Gunder notes that while Rule 18.3 meticulously outlines citation format, it fails to clarify when that format should be applied. Is citation required when AI serves merely as a drafting tool, or does it apply exclusively when AI outputs are relied upon as evidence or authority? This lack of clarity risks diluting the rigor of legal citations and poses ethical dilemmas regarding authoritative sources.
Internal Inconsistencies
Critics highlight that Rule 18.3 exhibits numerous internal inconsistencies. For example, the rule instructs the inclusion of the exact prompt text in citations for LLMs, yet examples from The Bluebook itself deviate from this specification. Such contradictions could lead to confusion among legal practitioners striving for compliance.
Burdensome Technical Requirements
Another focal point of critique is the impracticality of the technical requirements stipulated in Rule 18.3. Gunder cites empirical studies indicating that legal professionals often struggle with basic technological tasks. For instance, creating dynamic, hyperlink-enabled PDFs or taking comprehensive scrolling screenshots may prove too cumbersome for many legal practitioners. These complexities could inadvertently drive lawyers away from uniform citation practices, undermining The Bluebook’s foundational purpose.
Misalignment with AI Usage
The rule may also misunderstand the nature of AI utilization in legal contexts. Effective AI prompting typically unfolds through intricate, iterative interactions that span multiple dialogues. Simplifying this process into a single citation may fail to capture the nuanced exchanges that inform the final product. As Gunder elucidates, including entire iterative conversations as citations would be unwieldy and impractical.
Ethical Implications
More troubling are the potential ethical violations that adhering to Rule 18.3 might invite. Legal professionals are bound by confidentiality duties that protect client information. If the citation rule mandates disclosing AI tool usage indiscriminately, attorneys may inadvertently compromise their clients’ confidential details. Likewise, sharing protected thoughts or work product generated during interactions with AI tools could breach ethical norms.
Reassessing the Need for AI Citations
A contrasting view presented by Tanner advocates for a rethinking of how legal professionals interact with AI outputs. Instead of outright citations, she proposes that lawyers should disclose AI assistance without referencing the tools directly. In most cases, citing verified sources the AI may help locate would be more appropriate. For rare instances where AI-generated content is pertinent, Tanner advises clear delineation to prevent misconceptions regarding the accuracy and authority of such outputs.
Implications for Legal Education and Practice
The ramifications of Rule 18.3 transcend mere citation guidelines and extend into legal education and practice. Law schools now face the formidable challenge of instilling an understanding of both AI use and Rule 18.3’s requirements in students. Concurrently, law reviews must determine policies surrounding AI citations, while practitioners grapple with navigating jurisdictions that may strongly endorse The Bluebook’s revisions.
Conclusion
The introduction of Rule 18.3 has illuminated the tension between traditional legal citation practices and the rapidly evolving realm of AI. While the intention behind the rule may have been to provide clarity in the age of AI, the widespread critiques reveal its implementation to be fundamentally flawed. From internal inconsistencies to practical challenges and ethical dilemmas, The Bluebook would benefit from a comprehensive re-evaluation of Rule 18.3.
As legal professionals continue to integrate AI tools into their practices, it remains critical to strike a balance between acknowledging the technology’s role and upholding the foundational tenets of legal citation. The ongoing dialogue around Rule 18.3 represents more than a mere citation matter; it reflects broader questions about authority, credibility, and the future of legal practices in an increasingly digital world. In light of this scrutiny, one can only hope that The Bluebook editors will reassess and refine their approach to ensure it meets the needs of contemporary legal scholarship and practice.
