---
title: "Apply one approved tag to a legacy precedent"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/tag-and-classify-legacy-precedents-with-ai/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "KM-B12-16-US"
practice_area: "Knowledge Management"
tier: "green"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Apply one approved tag to a legacy precedent

> Return one tag from the closed list the lawyer approved for this library, together with the precedent's file name. Write no clause, no summary, and no new precedent.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/tag-and-classify-legacy-precedents-with-ai/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Knowledge Management](https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management.md) |
| Human involvement | Green: AI drafts, lawyer checks |
| How AI is used | Return one tag from the closed list the lawyer approved for this library, together with the precedent's file name. Write no clause, no summary, and no new precedent. |
| What the lawyer must review | The check of this tagging is completed at setup. Model Rule 1.1 requires competent representation, including the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary. ABA Formal Opinion 512 states that the verification Rule 1.1 requires depends on the tool and the task, and gives as an example that a lawyer who has tested the tool on a smaller subset, by manually reviewing those documents, comparing them with the tool's output, and finding the output accurate, need not manually review an entire set of the same kind. The closed list is the only output the tool may return, and you approve that list and run that subset test before the library is tagged. Model Rule 1.6(a) still requires informed consent before information relating to a representation is put into a tool that will not keep it confidential. That consent, or a configuration that keeps the text confidential, is also fixed at setup. A precedent of a kind that was not in the subset is a new test, not a reuse of this one. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Tag and classify legacy precedents with AI](https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/tag-and-classify-legacy-precedents-with-ai.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: Return one tag from the closed list the lawyer approved for this library, together with the precedent's file name. Write no clause, no summary, and no new precedent.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- The tag is a label from the approved list. It is not a statement that the precedent complies with any statute.
- If the tool's output is a sentence rather than one tag from the list, the setup check does not apply and the use is no longer this task.

## Sources

- [ABA Model Rule 1.1, competence](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Model Rule 1.6, confidentiality of information](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/) (checked 2026-10-22)

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