Confirmation bias doesn't really apply to the same extent with law as with other fields. If the AI says "Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 is authority for the pri

Confirmation bias doesn't really apply to the same extent with law as with other fields. If the AI says "Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 is authority for the principle that an item for display in a shop is an invitation to treat", it's either right or wrong. A lawyer can confirm that it's right by looking up the case in Westlaw (or equivalent database), check that it's still good law (not overridden by a higher court), and then read the case to make sure it's really about invitations to treat. If the AI says "Smith v Green [2021] EWCA Civ 742 is authority for the principle that consideration is no longer required for a contract in England" it will take you under 1 minute to learn that that case doesn't exist. Law isn't like, say, diet where there's a whole bunch of contradictory and uncertain information out there (e.g. eggs are good for you vs. eggs are bad for you) and the answer for you is going to be largely opinion based depending on which studies you read/prefer and your biases and personality. It's usually going to be pretty black and white whether the AI was hallucinating. There are rarely going to be a bunch of different contradictory rulings and, in most of the cases where there are, there will be a clear hierarchy where the "wrong" ones have been overridden by the correct ones.