There are explicit published guidelines for using AI in the legal field.
No court is actually against the use of LLM-generated text.
The problem is lazy lawyers. They just accept what is written on the screen in front of them. They do not rewrite it. They do not verify any quotes or legal briefs or opinions that it spits out at them.
And that is expressly forbidden. Everything that is submitted under a lawyer’s name has to be either written by or directly reviewed and approved by that lawyer.
Even lawyers know 80% of any legal brief is just stuff put in there to meet the text requirements for review.
If you use an LLM to fill in that 80% with some manual guidance, then it can allow you to focus on the 20% of the legal brief that actually matters.
There are explicit published guidelines for using AI in the legal field.
No court is actually against the use of LLM-generated text.
The problem is lazy lawyers. They just accept what is written on the screen in front of them. They do not rewrite it. They do not verify any quotes or legal briefs or opinions that it spits out at them.
And that is expressly forbidden. Everything that is submitted under a lawyer’s name has to be either written by or directly reviewed and approved by that lawyer.
Even lawyers know 80% of any legal brief is just stuff put in there to meet the text requirements for review.
If you use an LLM to fill in that 80% with some manual guidance, then it can allow you to focus on the 20% of the legal brief that actually matters.