Prepare a student’s response to an academic-misconduct allegation that involves a generative tool
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From the charge notice and the documents the student or lawyer supplies, list the rule cited, the work product at issue, and the facts the student accepts or disputes. The lawyer writes the response that is submitted.
- What the lawyer must review
- The institution’s code is the first instrument. For a public school, Goss v. Lopez describes the minimum notice and chance to respond for a suspension of 10 days or less; a university honour-board matter is not that case, and the lawyer does not cite Goss as if it set the university procedure. The response and the underlying work are education records under 20 U.S.C. § 1232g once the institution maintains them, and they do not go into a public tool (Rule 1.6). Formal Opinion 512 requires the lawyer to verify any authority the draft response uses. The lawyer does not let the tool invent a quotation from the student’s paper.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Consider narrowly defined preparation support after confirming the tool’s capability and permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.