---
title: "List what a drafting note would have to point to in the precedent"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/write-drafting-notes-for-a-precedent/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "KM-B12-06-US"
practice_area: "Knowledge Management"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# List what a drafting note would have to point to in the precedent

> List each defined term and each cross-reference in the precedent, and mark a cross-reference the precedent does not contain. Write no drafting note.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/write-drafting-notes-for-a-precedent/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 | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | List each defined term and each cross-reference in the precedent, and mark a cross-reference the precedent does not contain. Write no drafting note. |
| What the lawyer must review | You write the drafting note. Lawyers who later use the precedent will rely on that note, so Model Rule 1.1 requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 requires independent verification of generated output. The opinion also warns that generative tools can produce plausible text that is not accurate. A note that states a legal conclusion is your sentence. Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1, which says a lawyer should keep abreast of the benefits and risks of relevant technology, does not transfer the note to the tool. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Write drafting notes for a precedent](https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/write-drafting-notes-for-a-precedent.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: List each defined term and each cross-reference in the precedent, and mark a cross-reference the precedent does not contain. Write no drafting note.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- The list is internal to the precedent. It does not state that a clause complies with any statute.
- Do not add an Australian drafting note, or a citation the precedent does not already contain.

## 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 Model Rule 1.1, comment 8 on technology](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/comment_on_rule_1_1/) (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)

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Judgment know-how note](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/knowledge-management/judgment-knowhow-note.md) | Memo | Yellow | Internal note of a decision the practice will rely on: the citation, the holding in the note-writer's words after reading the judgment, what it does not decide, and which precedents to revisit. |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

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