Clients Ask Whether Hallucinating Partner Was Describing Their Bills

Clients of Pemberton Rook have asked whether corporate partner Felix Dacre’s hallucinatory conversation with a balance sheet contained anything useful about how their invoices were prepared.

The questions follow the retreat incident in which Dacre blamed an AI hallucination for a LinkedIn post dictated during a session involving psychedelics. His assistant, Nearly, had accurately transcribed what he said. The participant who believed the balance sheet was answering was the partner.

The firm has stressed that the incident took place away from client work. Clients have asked whether the balance sheet was aware of that distinction.

‘We received three different explanations for the same overrun,’ said one general counsel. ‘If the accounts have started speaking, I would like to hear their version.’

Another client has requested clarification of invoice entries described as strategic alignment, partner consideration and ongoing reflection. The client says none of the descriptions demonstrates that the retreat was charged to its matter. Equally, none helps it understand what was charged.

Pemberton Rook says there is no evidence that the retreat produced inaccurate client bills. Its finance team has reminded relationship partners that such evidence would require someone to examine the bills.

How the questions developed

The original incident: Dacre’s accurate AI transcript was presented as a technology failure.

The subsequent disclosures: Clients learned about the hotel complaints, avatar attendance, abandoned team-building exercise and partners disputing credit for a fight.

The billing questions: Several legal departments requested itemised explanations and confirmation that retreat expenses had not been allocated to their matters.

The response: Relationship partners offered calls with a broader group of specialists. Clients asked whether those calls would themselves require a fee estimate.

One legal operations team has compared a recent invoice with the firm’s account of the retreat. It found no duplicated expenses but did identify the same phrase, valuable strategic engagement, in both documents.

The relationship partner said this demonstrated consistency of approach. The client asked for a verb.

Nearly has become an unexpected point of interest. A client has asked whether the assistant could attend the clarification meeting and produce a literal record of the answers. The firm says all AI use must be subject to appropriate human oversight.

‘That is precisely what we are trying to establish,’ the client replied.

Pemberton Rook’s communications team says it will respond fully once the questions have been consolidated. The finance team says the underlying records already exist.

For now, the clients have requested that the records be sent before a presentation explaining the importance of transparency. The presentation has been scheduled. The records remain with the relationship partners.