In the digital age, every technological leap introduces a new kind of accident, as philosopher Paul Virilio suggested. For the legal profession, the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has produced the AI hallucination—where lawyers, judges, and even clients have fallen prey to citing non-existent cases and sources, believing them to be true. This phenomenon was spotlighted in the notorious *Mata v. Avianca* case, which became a critical reference point in discussions about AI's reliability in legal settings.

The legal community initially defended AI, blaming human error over technology. However, as incidents of AI hallucinations persist, it's worth questioning whether it’s time to scrutinize the technology itself. Despite varying levels of sanctions, from lenient to severe, the misuse of AI tools in legal filings continues unabated.

Recently, another incident surfaced where a lawyer attempted to gaslight a judge by insisting on the existence of attached cases that were, in fact, nonexistent. This not only raises questions about the reliability of AI in legal practices but also about the ethical implications of its use.

The debate extends into academic circles, with law professors weighing in on the impact of AI on legal ethics and practices. The core concern is whether the rapid processing capabilities of AI are fundamentally altering the nature of legal documents and the thought processes behind them. Virilio’s concept of speed altering the essence of events resonates here; AI doesn’t just enable quicker document drafting but might be reshaping the very methodology of legal reasoning and argumentation.

The concern is that AI, particularly in its more autonomous 'Agentic' form, is being seen as a solution to handle entire legal processes, potentially minimizing the lawyer's role in critical thinking and due diligence. The legal industry's fascination with AI's ability to work independently could lead to a decrease in the quality and reliability of legal work, as the technology might not yet be capable of fully understanding complex legal nuances without human oversight.

This scenario prompts a significant reflection within the legal community. Rather than shunning AI after a series of mishaps, the focus should be on how lawyers can adapt to these new tools responsibly. Understanding and adjusting to the psychological and procedural changes brought by AI in legal practices is crucial.

As the legal profession continues to integrate AI, the priority should be on creating robust frameworks and training programs that emphasize the importance of human oversight. The goal should be to leverage AI's capabilities without compromising on the accuracy and ethical standards fundamental to the law. The future of AI in law isn't just about embracing new technology but evolving with it to maintain the integrity and dependability of legal processes.