Google, AI, and Independent Legal Analysis: How Attorney Michael Kotik Reviews Criminal Defense Research

Technology has dramatically changed the way attorneys research, investigate, and review criminal cases. Google and artificial intelligence can both be useful tools, but neither should replace an attorney’s independent judgment, legal research, investigation, and analysis of the evidence.

Attorney Michael Kotik of SKA Law Group believes that technology should assist a lawyer—not make decisions for the lawyer.

Using Google for Legal Research

Traditional search engines such as Google can help an attorney locate publicly available information, identify potential issues, find relevant sources, and develop additional avenues of investigation. The attorney formulates the questions, reviews the available information, determines the credibility of the sources, and ultimately decides what information is relevant to the defense.

Using AI for Legal Research

Artificial intelligence can also be a valuable research tool. AI may help organize information, identify issues, generate research ideas, and present arguments that an attorney may want to investigate further. However, an attorney should never assume that an AI-generated legal conclusion is correct. AI can misunderstand facts, overlook important details, rely on outdated information, or generate inaccurate legal authorities. Any important legal proposition must therefore be independently verified through reliable legal sources.

Independent Judgment Matters

A criminal defense attorney should not ask Google or AI whether a client has a “good case” and simply accept the answer.

The attorney must independently examine the evidence, police reports, witness statements, applicable statutes, controlling case law, constitutional issues, credibility problems, potential defenses, and the prosecution’s ability to prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

That independent analysis becomes particularly important when determining whether a case should be negotiated, challenged through pretrial motions, litigated at a preliminary hearing, or ultimately taken to trial.

Technology can provide information. It cannot replace courtroom experience, attorney-client communication, investigation, strategy, or professional judgment.