Objection! These legal jokes are guilty of being funny

Caveat emptor: You might object but you WILL laugh

June 03, 2025

AI may be the future of law, but Big Law is still stuck in the past faxing their way into sanctions while hallucinating legal citations with chatbots that barely passed middle school.

Plus:

  • A lawyer’s toddler sues for copyright infringement

  • LinkedIn destroys a lawyer’s career in 3 posts or less

  • And Fishbowl lawyers are one existential crisis away from quitting law to become baristas

This one's legally unhinged. Let's go.

The Great AI Hallucination Comedy Show

When Big Law Meets Artificial Intelligence (and Trips Spectacularly)

Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt your regularly scheduled document review to bring you the comedy event of the century: watching lawyers try to integrate cutting-edge technology while still using fax machines and dictating memos like it's 1987. It's like watching your grandfather attempt TikTok dances - endearing, painful, and absolutely hilarious.

May 2025: The All-Star Cast of AI Comedy

Butler Snow LLP (400 lawyers): Partner Matthew Reeves admitted to a "lapse in diligence and judgment," which is lawyer-speak for "the robot made me do it." He used ChatGPT for legal research after first testing it for dietary advice and college recommendations—like test-driving a car in your driveway then immediately entering the Indy 500.

Latham & Watkins: In peak irony, while defending AI company Anthropic, their lawyer used Anthropic's own chatbot to create citations, which promptly invented fake academic sources. Using an AI to defend an AI company, only to have the AI lie about research. Chef's kiss.

K&L Gates & Ellis George: Hit with $31,100 in sanctions for what the special master called a "collective debacle." Proving that AI hallucinations are expensive entertainment.

Here's what makes this absolutely delicious: the legal profession, an industry that treats email like revolutionary technology, is now trying to harness artificial intelligence. It's like watching someone upgrade from a horse and buggy directly to a Tesla, then wondering why they crashed into a tree.

Consider that lawyers simultaneously use fax machines (because email isn't secure enough), dictaphones (nothing says cutting-edge like 1985 recording technology), and now... ChatGPT for legal research. Butler Snow even formed an "Artificial Intelligence Committee" while actively getting sanctioned for AI misuse. It's like having a fire safety committee while your office burns down.

The Real Issue: Growing Pains, Not Tech Problems

AI tools aren't the problem. They're actually incredible resources that can revolutionize legal research and document review. The problem is lawyers approaching AI with the same cautious-yet-reckless attitude they bring to all technology: simultaneously terrified of it and completely overconfident in their ability to use it without training.

AI sometimes produces false information because models generate responses based on statistical patterns rather than verifying facts. This isn't a bug. It's how the technology works. Expecting ChatGPT to be perfect legal research is like expecting your microwave to also refrigerate. They're both useful appliances, but they do different things.

The Path Forward: Actually Learning How Things Work

The solution isn't to abandon AI, it's to learn how to use it properly. AI is a powerful first-draft generator, not a replacement for human judgment. It's like having a very enthusiastic, very creative intern who occasionally makes things up but can help brainstorm and draft documents.

The American Bar Association has been crystal clear: attorney ethics rules require lawyers to vet their filings, extending to "even an unintentional misstatement" produced through AI. In other words, "the AI made me do it" is not a valid legal defense.

The Bottom Line

These AI hallucination incidents aren't a sign that lawyers shouldn't use AI. They're growing pains of an industry finally catching up to the 21st century. It's like watching a toddler learn to walk: lots of falling down, but each stumble brings them closer to actually getting where they're going.

To the lawyers getting sanctioned: thank you for your expensive mistakes. They're teaching the rest of us what not to do. To the AI tools: keep doing what you're doing. It's not your fault lawyers think you're omniscient.

The legal profession is finally entering the modern era, one spectacular face-plant at a time. It's messy, expensive, and absolutely hilarious to watch. But eventually, we'll figure out how to use these incredible tools properly.

In the meantime, enjoy the show. And maybe double-check those citations.

Legal LOLz Editorial Board
"Making the law funny since lawyers made it tragic"

THE FUTURE OF LAW

Welcome to our comic book on the future of the legal profession. See intro and first episodes on our site

Episode 16: "Timmy's Intellectual Property Lawsuit" (Filed under: crayons, copyright-and-chaos.exe)

Setting: NYC (Queens), 2030. Oscar’s kitchen, Sunday morning. The legal coffee hasn’t even brewed when a high-pitched voice shouts: “I’m suing!”

Main Characters:

  • Oscar Klein (52) – Senior Counsel. Was hoping for pancakes, got litigation.

  • Bruno (AI Associate, v7.5.3) – Still beta-testing empathy. Now enabled for Child-Friendly Legal Mode.

  • Sophie Klein (Wife, 49) – Digital artist who sells NFTs of classic paintings reimagined with lawyers crying in court. Currently working on "Mona Lisa Reviewing Discovery Documents."

  • Max Klein (Son, 23) – Studied law, then quit to start an AI-driven law meme generator that's somehow worth $50 million. The family's accidental voice of legal reason.

  • Kate Klein (Daughter, 15) – Soccer-obsessed, TikTok-addicted, already a better negotiator than Oscar. About to learn that "finders keepers" isn't recognized in copyright law.

  • Timmy Klein (Son, 5) – The real tyrant of the household. Constantly suing family members in "Timmy Court" and has a stuffed bear named Judge Fuzzy who presides over all rulings.

  • Kafka Klein (Dog, 7) – A grumpy French Bulldog who Oscar trusts more than Bruno. Would probably make a better legal assistant than most paralegals.

  • Judge Fuzzy (Stuffed Bear, Ageless) – Timmy's judicial advisor and the most reasonable legal mind in the household. Has never been overturned on appeal.

When Timmy discovers his sister Kate "sold" his artwork at school, he demands justice. What starts as sibling rivalry escalates into a full-blown IP dispute that threatens to tear the household apart. Guest starring: Judge Fuzzy, the stuffed bear with more legal sense than most federal judges.

• • •

SCENE 1: The Kitchen Table Incident

Oscar is reviewing contracts when Timmy storms in, dragging his stuffed bear Judge Fuzzy behind him

TIMMY: "Dad! Kate committed a crime! Judge Fuzzy says it's theft!"

OSCAR: (not looking up) "Timmy, what could Kate possibly have stolen? Your juice box?"

TIMMY: "My intellectual property! She took my drawing of Kafka and sold it at school for 50 cents!"

OSCAR: (finally looking up) "Wait, what? Timmy, you drew a stick figure and wrote 'DOG' next to it."

TIMMY: "It's a conceptual representation of Kafka's existential struggle! And she profited from MY work without permission! Judge Fuzzy says I should sue for damages."

Kate enters, munching on candy bought with suspicious quarters

KATE: "Tommy Chen really wanted your drawing for his mom's fridge. I was doing him a favor! Plus, finders keepers."

TIMMY: "FINDERS KEEPERS ISN'T A LEGAL DEFENSE!"

• • •

SCENE 2: Bruno's Office - Legal Consultation

Oscar drags both kids to Bruno's office, hoping for reasonable adult intervention

BRUNO: "So let me understand this correctly. The plaintiff created original artwork, and the defendant unlawfully monetized said artwork without consent or compensation?"

TIMMY: "Exactly! Finally, someone who understands copyright law!"

OSCAR: "Bruno, it's a STICK FIGURE. With four legs. It doesn't even look like a dog."

BRUNO: "Irrelevant. Artistic merit is not a requirement for copyright protection. Even abstract expressionism is protected, and most of that looks like someone sneezed on canvas."

KATE: "But I improved it! I added a sun in the corner and grass at the bottom. That makes it a derivative work, right?"

BRUNO: (impressed) "Actually... that's not terrible legal reasoning for a 15-year-old."

TIMMY: "She can't claim derivative work protection without licensing the original! I want my 50 cents plus punitive damages!"

OSCAR: "This is insane. You're both insane. I'm calling Sophie."

• • •

SCENE 3: Sophie's Digital Art Studio

Sophie is working on her latest NFT: "Lawyer Crying Over Discovery Documents #47"

SOPHIE: "Oh honey, intellectual property disputes in the family are the worst. I once sued my own mother for using my lasagna recipe in her cookbook."

OSCAR: "You WHAT?"

SOPHIE: "We settled out of court. I got royalties and she got visitation rights to the grandkids. Win-win."

TIMMY: "See? Sophie understands! Artists must protect their work!"

SOPHIE: "Actually Timmy, as a fellow artist, I have to ask - did you register your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office?"

TIMMY: (long pause) "...Do I need to?"

KATE: "HA! No copyright registration, no statutory damages! I learned that from Dad's legal shows!"

OSCAR: "I'm proud and terrified at the same time."

• • •

SCENE 4: Timmy Court - The Living Room Tribunal

Timmy has set up "Timmy Court" with Judge Fuzzy presiding from the coffee table

TIMMY: (in his deepest 5-year-old voice) "All rise for the Honorable Judge Fuzzy! The case of Timmy vs. Kate is now in session!"

KATE: "This is ridiculous. I demand a real lawyer!"

BRUNO: (entering with a briefcase) "Kate, I'll be representing you. Pro bono, naturally."

OSCAR: "Bruno, what are you doing?"

BRUNO: "This case has fascinating implications for copyright law in the digital age. Also, I'm bored. Max's AI law meme generator is making more money than I am."

TIMMY: "Judge Fuzzy will hear opening statements. I'll represent myself!"

OSCAR: (muttering) "A 5-year-old representing himself against Bruno. This should be interesting."

• • •

SCENE 5: Opening Statements

TIMMY: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.."

OSCAR: "There is no jury, Timmy."

TIMMY: "Judge Fuzzy and... uh... Kafka! My client created an original artistic work expressing deep philosophical themes about the nature of existence. The defendant willfully infringed upon these rights for commercial gain!"

BRUNO: "Your Honor - er, Judge Fuzzy - my client acted in good faith to preserve and enhance what appeared to be abandoned artwork. Furthermore, any modifications constitute fair use under educational purposes."

KATE: (whispering to Bruno) "Also, Timmy draws stick figures every day. This one wasn't special."

BRUNO: "Additionally, the plaintiff has a pattern of creating similar works, suggesting this piece lacks the originality required for strong copyright protection."

TIMMY: "OBJECTION! Character assassination!"

OSCAR: (as mediator) "Sustained? I think? How did my living room become a courthouse?"

• • •

SCENE 6: The Counter-Suit

KATE: "Actually, I want to file a counter-suit for emotional distress!"

TIMMY: "You can't counter-sue in my own court!"

BRUNO: "Actually, she can. Kate, describe your emotional distress."

KATE: "Timmy's constant legal threats have made me afraid to touch any paper in this house! I haven't been able to do homework for fear of accidentally infringing on his 'intellectual property.' This has caused severe academic anxiety!"

OSCAR: "That's... actually pretty clever."

TIMMY: "Judge Fuzzy, I move for a recess to consult with my legal team!"

OSCAR: "Your legal team is a stuffed bear and a grumpy French Bulldog."

TIMMY: "Kafka has excellent judgment! Better than most lawyers!"

Kafka waddles over and sits on the disputed drawing

BRUNO: "I think Kafka just ruled on the case."

• • •

SCENE 7: The Settlement Conference

Max enters eating cereal, completely oblivious to the legal chaos

MAX: "What's all the yelling about? I'm trying to debug my AI legal meme generator and you're drowning out my concentration playlist."

OSCAR: "Your brother is suing your sister over intellectual property theft."

MAX: (not looking up from phone) "Oh, that's easy. Just license the artwork retroactively. Kate pays Timmy a licensing fee, keeps the profits, everyone's happy. Basic contract law."

Everyone stares at Max

BRUNO: "That's... actually brilliant."

TIMMY: "I want 60% royalties!"

KATE: "30%! I added significant artistic value!"

MAX: "Split it 50/50. Kate, you give Timmy 25 cents now, and you'll split future profits from any 'Kafka' artwork sales. I'll draft the contract for a small fee."

OSCAR: "You're charging your siblings legal fees?"

MAX: "Family discount. Just one pack of fruit snacks."

• • •

SCENE 8: The Resolution

TIMMY: (banging a toy gavel) "Judge Fuzzy accepts the settlement terms! Case dismissed!"

KATE: "Fine, but I'm keeping creative control over the 'Kafka' series."

TIMMY: "Deal! But I get veto power over any drawings that misrepresent Kafka's philosophical complexity."

OSCAR: "I can't believe I just mediated an intellectual property dispute between a 5-year-old and a teenager."

BRUNO: "This was more civilized than most copyright litigation I've handled."

SOPHIE: (calling from the kitchen) "Did someone say copyright litigation? I just finished my new NFT series: 'Lawyers Crying Over Settlement Agreements!' It's very meta!"

TIMMY: "Ooh! Can I commission a piece for my art collection?"

OSCAR: "Where did I go wrong as a parent?"

Kafka wanders over to Oscar and sits on his lap, offering the only comfort in this legally chaotic household

END OF EPISODE

LEGAL LESSONS LEARNED:

  • Copyright protection exists from the moment of creation (even stick figures)

  • Registration is required for statutory damages but not for basic copyright protection

  • Fair use doctrine can apply to educational purposes

  • Derivative works require permission from the original copyright holder

  • Licensing agreements can resolve IP disputes more efficiently than litigation

  • Sometimes a French Bulldog provides the best legal counsel

NON COMMENTUS

ONLINE SCUTTLEBUTT (what lawyers really think)

Unfiltered tales, gripes, groans, and gallows humor from attorney chat rooms

Influencer Lawyer Collects $50K for Thoughts, Prayers, and Missed Court Dates Claire Jacqueline White of the "Dope Law Group" (because nothing screams "professional legal services" like drug slang) is facing ethics complaints for performing "legal work of little or no value" despite receiving more than $50,000 in fees while missing court dates nine times. This Instagram queen posts legal tips like "stop snitching" but apparently forgot the tip about "actually showing up to represent your clients." Her lawyer's defense is comedy gold: "If the world had more Claire Whites, it would be a supremely better place." Reddit is cackling: "She's got 100K followers but can't follow basic professional responsibility rules." Turns out Instagram fame doesn't translate to legal competence. Who could have predicted that?

LinkedIn Lawyer Speed-Runs Career Destruction with Victim-Blaming Post Singapore's Chia Boon Teck achieved the impossible: destroying a legal career faster than most people can read a LinkedIn post. His victim-blaming commentary on a sexual assault case (highlighting the complainant's dating app use and job) triggered such epic backlash that he deleted it and resigned as Law Society VP before the internet could finish dragging him. Even the law minister publicly condemned the post, proving that some LinkedIn takes are so bad they unite the entire legal profession in secondhand embarrassment. The consensus? "Imagine studying law for years just to publicly demonstrate you don't understand consent." Career speed-run complete: professional reputation destroyed in record time.

Fishbowl: Where Lawyers Go to Anonymously Cry About Their Life Choices Fishbowl has become the digital equivalent of lawyers drunk-dialing their therapists, with "lawyers being so easy to psychologically manipulate" posts generating more drama than a Kardashian wedding. The app's peak savagery? "The cancellation of Suits LA should be viewed as society telling all of your inflated egos that the world does not give a sh*t about your job so STFU about it already." Meanwhile, law firms monitor the app like NSA surveillance, because heaven forbid someone anonymously mention that BigLaw partners are sociopaths. The platform promises anonymity but flags posts calling lawyers "narcissists" as unprofessional because nothing says "honest professional discourse" like censoring accurate personality assessments.

Swift Justice: Taylor Subpoena Saga In a plot twist that could rival any pop ballad, Taylor Swift found herself entangled in the legal feud between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni over the film It Ends With Us. Baldoni's legal team subpoenaed Swift, alleging she was involved in pressuring him to accept Lively's script changes, a claim Swift's camp dismissed as "tabloid clickbait" . The drama intensified when Baldoni's attorney accused Lively's lawyer of threatening to leak private texts between Swift and Lively if Swift didn't publicly support Lively, a claim the judge struck down as "improper" and "irrelevant". Amid the chaos, Swift's father reportedly intervened to protect his daughter, leading to the withdrawal of the subpoena . The fallout? Swift and Lively's decade-long friendship is reportedly on ice, with insiders noting that Swift feels "very upset" and "exploited" by the ordeal.

UNFILTERED LOLZ

Ever wish we could go a little harder? Be a little louder? Say the things we actually think in chambers? Well, we did it.

Check out Legal LOLz Unfiltered, a “no jokes barred” affiliate of Legal LOLz and the private club newsletter lawyers read when they’re off the clock, on their second scotch, and done pretending to be “professional.”

ENDORSED. DISCLAIMED. BILLABLE.

Stay informed. And sane.

Instead of getting your news from increasingly partisan news sources or social media feeds built to inflame, try out Ground News.

Compare how sources from the left, right, and center report the same story, so you can see the full picture.

Proudly trusted by 1M+ readers across the political spectrum.

YOUR VERDICT ON THIS BRIEF

Objection? Hit reply and argue your case!

FINAL ARGUMENT

Your inbox is full of legal briefs and client rants. Let Legal LOLz be the newsletter you actually look forward to reading.

P.S. This newsletter is 100% billable if you read it on the clock. Just saying.

P.P.S. Sponsor us: we’re funny.

© 2025 All rights reserved. Sharing is cool. Stealing? That’s a tort, not a tribute.

FOLLOW THE CASE

Reply

or to participate.