Show me where she makes any predictive claims about likelihood. The analysis find that of the cases where AI was used, 90% are either solo practices or small firms. It does not conclude that there's a 90% chance a given claim using AI was done by solo or small firm, or make any other assertions about rates.
That is an assertion which requires numbers. If 98% of firms submitting legal briefs are solo or small firms, then the above statement is untrue. The archetype if my prior sentence is true, would be not-small/solo firms.
The background data is also suspect.
https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/
"all documents where the use of AI, whether established or merely alleged, is addressed in more than a passing reference by the court or tribunal. Notably, this does not cover mere allegations of hallucinations, but only cases where the court or tribunal has explicitly found (or implied) that the AI produced hallucinated content."
While a good idea, the database is predicated upon news, or people submitting examples as well. There may be some scraping of court documents as well, it's not entirely clear.
Regardless, the data is only predictive of people getting called out for such nonsense. A larger firm may have such issues with a lawyer, apologize to the court, have more clout with the court, and replace the lawyer with another employee.
This is something a smaller firm cannot do, if it is a firm of one person.
It's a nice writeup, and interesting. But it does lead to unverified assertions and conclusions.
For example, they make the claim that solo and small firms are the most likely to file AI hallucinations because they represent 50% and 40% of the instances of legal briefs with hallucinations. However, without the base rate for briefs files by solo or small firms compare to larger firms, we don’t know if that is unusual or not. If 50% of briefs were files by solo firms and 40% were filed by small firms, then the data would actually be showing that firm size doesn’t matter.