---
title: "Draft plea, sentence or bail submissions from the brief"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/draft-plea-sentence-or-bail-submissions-from-the-brief"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A20-T1-R2"
practice_area: "Criminal Law"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-28"
---

# Draft plea, sentence or bail submissions from the brief

> From the permitted brief, the facts sheet, the antecedents and the client's instructions, the tool tables which prosecution facts the client accepts and which are disputed with page cites to the source, and lists the…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/draft-plea-sentence-or-bail-submissions-from-the-brief  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-28

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Criminal Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | From the permitted brief, the facts sheet, the antecedents and the client's instructions, the tool tables which prosecution facts the client accepts and which are disputed with page cites to the source, and lists the sentencing or bail authorities the lawyer nominated beside the passages the lawyer marked. It writes no part of the submissions handed up or filed: no outline, no headings, no suggested paragraphs on objective seriousness, remorse or proposed conditions. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer drafts the submissions and checks their own draft against the table: every fact asserted is one the client has instructed and the brief supports, every concession on the facts or the criminal history is one the client has authorised, and each authority, section and maximum penalty is read in the original before it is cited. The lawyer also checks the table has not dropped a fact the prosecution relies on or a prior the antecedents disclose. |
| Written for / versions | 1 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. 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. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
3. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
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 |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/draft-plea-sentence-or-bail-submissions-from-the-brief/united-states.md) | Red |

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