List dispute exposure arising from the use of a generative tool
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From the filings, contracts, and incidents the lawyer identifies, list the document, the tool named, and the sentence the lawyer says is in issue. Do not predict the outcome of a dispute and do not write a filing.
- What the lawyer must review
- A paper presented to a federal court is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, including that legal contentions are warranted and that factual contentions have evidentiary support or are identified as likely to have it. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024) warns that a generative tool can produce unreliable citations and that the lawyer remains responsible. ABA Model Rule 1.6 limits what information relating to a representation may be put into a tool. The list is a working paper. The lawyer decides whether any dispute exposure exists and what, if anything, is said about it.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Potential support includes identifying points for review. Confirm 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.