Set out whether the defendant failed to use ordinary care
Key facts
- Human involvement
- RedLawyer-led
- How AI is used
- From the pleaded risk and the precautions said to have been omitted, build a question table. Do not decide whether the defendant was negligent.
- What the lawyer must review
- California Civil Code § 1714(a) asks whether an injury was occasioned by a want of ordinary care or skill in the management of property or person. The opened section does not list probability, likely seriousness, burden of the precaution, or social utility. ABA Formal Opinion 512 says a lawyer who relies on generative output without an appropriate degree of independent verification can breach Model Rule 1.1, and that the tool cannot replace the lawyer's judgment. You decide whether ordinary care was used and you write the pleading. Do not paste the precaution questions in Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B into a California advice.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Supporting preparation only. Consider narrowly defined preparation support after confirming the tool’s capability and permitted scope. The tool writes nothing into the document. Substantive advice, judgement and any restricted content remain with the responsible human. |
| Lawyer | Perform the substantive analysis and decisions. Independently check any permitted supporting work and approve the exact output for its intended use. |
Checklist
- 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.