Research preparation
Frame the issue, jurisdiction, date boundary, client objective, and authoritative sources before asking AI to organize or compare material.
Apply: build a defensible legal work product
Use AI for bounded research, drafting, comparison, or review while the responsible professional controls the matter, authority, and final advice.
Choose a legal workflow
Draft development
Use AI for an outline or first draft with approved matter context. Keep citations, quotations, assumptions, and unresolved issues visible.
Review and issue spotting
Ask AI to surface gaps or alternatives, then independently verify every consequential authority, fact, deadline, and client-specific conclusion.
Controls and review thresholds
- Low consequence: internal brainstorming or formatting may receive basic self-review, with confidential data still protected.
- Medium consequence: client-facing recommendations require a named validator, source-backed assumptions, and unresolved issues flagged before approval.
- High consequence: filings, formal advice, settlement positions, or regulatory work require independent verification and named Prepared By, Validated By, and Approved By roles.
Practice output
Produce a Legal Work Integrity Packet with the intended outcome, visible assumptions, authority and evidence trail, validation status, ownership, and residual risk. A polished draft is not ready until another qualified professional can review it without reconstructing private context.
Approved-use boundaries
Use only approved tools and matter data paths. Do not place privileged, confidential, personal, or client-identifying information into an unapproved system. AI may assist the workflow; it does not provide legal advice, make the professional judgment, or replace authority checking.
Continue with professional review
Return to the legal professional path, see a workflow review example, or review validation controls. This site provides general practice guidance rather than legal advice.