Human review of an AI-assisted legal draft
For attorneys supervising AI-assisted drafting.
Where should a lawyer pause an AI-assisted draft for review?
Review the instructions and permitted inputs before drafting, check each material statement against its source after drafting, and approve the final version for its particular audience. A review note should identify what the reviewer actually examined.
Before drafting, agree on the boundaries
Identify the reader, purpose, governing jurisdiction and deadline. Give the drafter a fixed source set and a way to flag missing material. Decide whether the tool and settings are approved for that information and whether client instructions or applicable rules require another step. If the source set excludes sensitive material, plan who will supply and check that part separately.
Read the draft beside the evidence
Take a substantive paragraph and mark its factual assertions, legal propositions and recommendations in different ways. Trace each factual assertion to a record location and each proposition to the primary authority in context. Have the responsible lawyer decide whether the recommendation follows. If a date, quotation or factual premise lacks support, return the sentence to the drafter with a precise question.
Ask what the draft leaves out. Check exceptions, contrary facts and procedural posture. A paragraph can accurately summarize a source and still answer the wrong legal question.
Approve the copy that will leave the team
Resolve open comments and compare the final text with the reviewed version. Check the recipient, attachments, quoted language and any placeholders. Record the approver, version and authorized action. Return a changed amount, new representation or revised legal conclusion for a fresh look.
ABA Formal Opinion 512 explains how the ABA Model Rules apply to lawyers' use of generative AI. Consult the governing rules and court or client instructions for the particular assignment.
Worked example
Illustrative example. A proposed letter says the counterparty received notice on May 8. The file contains a May 8 mailing receipt, and the agreement makes receipt significant. The reviewer asks for delivery evidence. If none is available, the reviewer narrows the statement to the documented mailing and revisits the legal analysis before approving the letter.
Primary sources
Related work at Agentic Attorney
This drafting guide participates in the shared Agentic Attorney resource collection. The hub describes AI consulting and implementation for legal teams. Explore Agentic Attorney’s approach to AI implementation.