一家联邦上诉法院裁定，一家律师事务所在商业秘密诉讼中使用人工智能（AI）辅助工作，并不构成削减其在该案中法律费用裁决的理由，驳回了该技术导致过度计费的指控。
A law firm's use of AI to support its work in a trade secrets lawsuit does not warrant cutting its legal fee award in the case, a federal appeals court has ruled, rejecting claims that the technology led to excessive billing.
总部设在丹佛的美国第十巡回上诉法院周五表示，科罗拉多州下级法院的一名法官已审查了被告律师事务所 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 提交的计费记录，并认定 11.5 万美元的费用裁决属于合理。
The Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals said on Friday that a judge in the lower court in Colorado had reviewed the billing records submitted by the defendants' law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck and found the award of $115,000 to be reasonable.
“原告未能证明被告律师使用 AI 导致其实际投入的工时变得不合理，”巡回法官 Carolyn McHugh 代表三法官合议庭写道。上诉法院维持了驳回该诉讼的判决。
"Plaintiffs have not shown that defense counsel’s use of AI rendered the hours that they actually expended unreasonable," Circuit Judge Carolyn McHugh wrote for the three-judge panel. The appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit.
法院表示，虽然 AI 和其他研究工具可能使律师工作更高效，但律师仍负有核实法律依据和论点的道德义务。
The court said that while AI and other research tools may make lawyers more efficient, attorneys still have an ethical obligation to verify legal authorities and arguments.
该裁决发布之际，律师事务所及其客户正在探讨 AI 如何重塑法律计费模式。律所越来越多地采用 AI 工具以加快法律研究、起草及其他工作，这引发了关于效率提升是否应影响费用及其他成本的问题。
The ruling comes as law firms and their clients are grappling with how AI could reshape legal billing. Firms have increasingly adopted AI tools to speed up legal research, drafting and other uses, raising questions about whether increases in efficiency should affect fees and other costs.
代表被告的 Brownstein Hyatt 合伙人 Christopher Ottele 欢迎法院的裁决。
Brownstein Hyatt partner Christopher Ottele, representing the defendants, welcomed the court's ruling.
“AI 是复杂案件律所必须拥抱的强大工具，”Ottele 表示。“这一判决确认，使用 AI 无法替代律师在向法院提交的每一份文件中仍必须行使的判断力和分析力。” 原告律师未立即回应置评请求。
"AI is a powerful tool that sophisticated firms must embrace," Ottele said. "This decision confirms that the use of AI is not a substitute for the judgment and analysis that attorneys still must exercise in every filing with the court." A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
该诉讼于 2024 年由工业电机效率设备制造商 Flux Drive 提起，指控其前工程师之一协助窃取专有信息并将其转移给一家中国制造商。一名法官驳回了该诉讼，并判令 Flux Drive 承担被告的法律费用。
The lawsuit was filed in 2024 by industrial motor-efficiency equipment maker Flux Drive and alleged one of its former engineers helped to steal proprietary information and transfer it to a Chinese manufacturer. A judge dismissed the lawsuit and said Flux Drive must cover the defendants' legal fees.
Flux Drive 在上诉中以多项理由质疑律师费裁决，其中包括被告律师为所谓的“事务性任务”计费。该公司还主张，辩方律师使用 AI 本应减少其计费工时。
Flux Drive in its appeal challenged the fee award on various grounds, including that the defendants' lawyers billed time for allegedly “ministerial tasks.”The company also said the defense lawyers’ use of AI should have reduced their billing.
被告方称这些论点毫无根据。他们表示，涉及 AI 的每一项法律研究环节均经律师核实，且 Flux Drive “未能指出任何一项虚高的工时记录、任何一项冗余任务或任何一项不合理收费”。该案为 Flux Drive Inc 诉 Qiang Rong 案，美国第十巡回上诉法院，案号 25-1308。
The defendants said the arguments had no merit. They said every element of legal research involving AI had been verified by the lawyers and that Flux Drive “does not identify a single inflated time entry, a single redundant task, or a single unreasonable charge.”The case is Flux Drive Inc v. Qiang Rong, 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1308.
原告代理律师：The Miller Law Offices 的 Steven Miller被告代理律师：Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 的 Christopher Ottele法官警告 AI 可能阻碍律师培养并损害当事人利益法庭文件中 AI“幻觉”现象显现放缓迹象，但法官仍持续敲响警钟佛罗里达州律师因法官称为“AI 垃圾”的文书被移交可能纪律处分美国联邦上诉法院斥责律师引用“虚假且幻觉产生”的判例法官裁定诉讼双方均滥用 AI，取消律师资格
For plaintiffs: Steven Miller of The Miller Law Offices For defendants: Christopher Ottele of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Judge warns AI could stunt lawyers' training and harm their clients AI 'hallucinations' in court filings show signs of slowdown, but judges still sound alarms Florida lawyer referred for possible discipline over filing that judges called 'AI slop' US appeals court rebukes lawyer over ‘fake and hallucinated’ case citations Judge rules both sides in lawsuit misused AI, disqualifies lawyers