---
title: "Draft written submissions from the evidence table"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/draft-written-submissions-from-the-evidence-table"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A5-T1-R5"
practice_area: "Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Draft written submissions from the evidence table

> Build a structured outline of argument with proposed record citations from the evidence table and authorities list the lawyer supplied.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/draft-written-submissions-from-the-evidence-table  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Commercial Litigation & Dispute Resolution](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Build a structured outline of argument with proposed record citations from the evidence table and authorities list the lawyer supplied. |
| What the lawyer must review | Verify every citation in a trusted source and against the transcript or exhibit Do not file AI-proposed authorities you have not read |
| Written for / versions | 2 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and identifying points for review. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
3. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
4. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
5. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [New Zealand](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/draft-written-submissions-from-the-evidence-table/new-zealand.md) | Yellow |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/commercial-litigation-and-dispute-resolution/draft-written-submissions-from-the-evidence-table/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*