For new lawyers, the question isn’t whether to use AI in legal research but how to use it responsibly. AI-enabled platforms can save time, spot patterns, and deliver results that would take hours to compile manually. But as these systems grow more powerful, lawyers must grow more intentional. That means understanding how the tools work, learning what they’re good at—and what they’re not—and using them in ways that respect legal ethics and client expectations.
The following information is a practical, hands-on guide for implementing AI-based research tools in legal practice. It focuses on front-end preparation: what lawyers need to research, what training they should complete, and what policies they should have in place before turning these tools loose on client matters. It also covers the ethical obligations of AI use—particularly around confidentiality, competence, and supervision. Finally, it emphasizes the importance of quality control: cite-checking, editing, and applying legal judgment to ensure that AI-assisted work meets professional standards.
AI may be doing more of the heavy lifting, but the lawyer is still driving the case forward. Learn how to keep your hands on the wheel.
How to Choose the Right AI Tool
The market for AI tools in the legal profession is growing fast and evolving even faster. Some platforms are built specifically for lawyers, with guardrails for confidentiality and workflows tailored to legal reasoning. Others are general-purpose tools adapted for legal tasks, often with fewer built-in protections. Understanding the difference is key.
Harvey AI
Harvey AI is one of the most prominent legal-specific tools. Built on OpenAI’s GPT architecture but customized for legal applications, Harvey is designed to help lawyers draft contracts, analyze documents, summarize depositions, and more—all with the ability to interact conversationally in plain English.
CoCounsel
CoCounsel, formerly Casetext, acquired by Thomson Reuters, offers similar capabilities with a tight focus on legal research, document review, and deposition prep. It offers outputs with linked legal citations, allowing attorneys to verify sources directly—a crucial feature given the risks of so-called “hallucinations” in large language models.
Lexis+ AI and Westlaw Precision AI
Lexis+ AI and Westlaw Precision AI represent the next generation of traditional research platforms. These tools layer generative AI capabilities onto trusted legal databases, giving users conversational search options, quick brief analyses, and AI-assisted drafting while staying within a walled universe of verified legal content.
General Purpose AI Models
There are also general-purpose AI models like ChatGPT, Claude by Anthropic, and Microsoft Copilot, which are capable of legal-style writing but not built specifically for the practice of law. These tools can be useful for brainstorming, summarizing nonsensitive content, or outlining workflows. But they also come with risks. Unless used through secure enterprise versions, they may not offer the privacy protections required for legal work.
What these tools share is promise. But what separates the professional from the hobbyist is how—and when—they’re deployed. Choosing a platform is only the beginning. What matters more is how you prepare to use these tools safely, responsibly, and effectively.
Preparing to Use AI in Practice
Before bringing any AI tool into your legal practice, it is necessary to start with a clear, strategic assessment of where it fits into the practice. That means evaluating the day-to-day work of your firm or practice group and identifying tasks where AI can add value—without compromising ethics, quality, or client trust. These are usually repeatable or time-intensive tasks: drafting internal research memos, summarizing lengthy transcripts, identifying relevant case law, or comparing boilerplate contract terms. Once those use cases are clear, the next step is selecting the right tool for the job. Not all platforms are created equal. You need to know what type of system you’re using—whether it’s closed or open, what training data it relies on, and how it handles the information you give it.
Conduct Thorough Research
The research phase shouldn’t stop at the vendor’s website. Read bar opinions on AI use in your jurisdiction. Review third-party evaluations from organizations focused on security, privacy, or model integrity. Ask tough questions about how these tools store, transmit, and protect data. If the vendor can’t give clear answers about how the system is trained or whether your inputs are retained, that’s a red flag. You can also learn a great deal by speaking to other attorneys who’ve already integrated these tools into their workflows—particularly regarding limitations that don’t appear in marketing demos. Understanding what the tool can’t do is just as important as knowing what it claims to do well.
Organize Training and Policy Development
Once you’ve selected a tool, the next critical step is training and policy development. Lawyers and staff need to know how to use the technology effectively, as well as how to stay within ethical and operational boundaries. That includes knowing which tasks are appropriate for AI assistance, how outputs are reviewed before they’re shared with clients or courts, and what types of data are strictly off-limits. Training should be mandatory—not optional—and ideally include CLEs, internal workshops, or vendor-led sessions that go beyond functionality to cover risk. At the same time, firms should adopt clear, written AI use policies that address responsibilities, approvals, and quality control expectations. Without that front-end work, even the best AI tool can introduce unacceptable risks.
As a new attorney, your goal is to build trust. That starts by treating AI like any other legal assistant—useful, fast, and helpful, but never a substitute for your own analysis, judgment, or ethical obligations.
Ethical and Confidential Use of AI Tools
After an AI tool is selected and implemented, the next layer of responsibility is ethical use. At the top of that list is confidentiality. Lawyers should never input client-specific or privileged data into unsecured, consumer-grade AI platforms. That includes free versions of tools like ChatGPT unless they are deployed in a secure enterprise environment with encryption and clear data-handling policies. Many platforms retain user input to improve their models unless otherwise specified. That alone can compromise attorney-client privilege. Responsible use means sticking to platforms that offer contractual data protection, enterprise licenses, and firm-level control over information flows. Before using any AI tool, attorneys need to know exactly where their data is going—and who has access to it.
There are also times when lawyers must disclose their use of AI to clients. If an AI tool performs a substantive legal task—like drafting a client memo or reviewing discovery—transparency may be required, especially if a third-party vendor provides the tool. American Bar Association Model Rule 1.6, along with recent ethics opinions, make it clear that attorneys have a duty to maintain confidentiality, supervise nonlawyers, and obtain informed consent where appropriate. If an AI tool is assisting with work that a client might reasonably expect a licensed attorney to perform directly, it’s time to discuss how the technology fits into the workflow.
Equally important is avoiding overreliance. AI tools are fast but not infallible. They can hallucinate facts, fabricate case citations, and produce convincing but legally unsound conclusions. Courts have already sanctioned lawyers who submitted briefs containing fake judicial opinions generated by AI. Treating AI output as authoritative without verification is a professional risk. At every stage, attorneys must remember that AI is not a legal expert—it’s a tool that requires supervision, discretion, and final judgment by a human being bound by ethical rules.
Reviewing, Verifying, and Finalizing Work Product When Utilizing AI
No matter how advanced an AI tool is, the responsibility for the final work product remains squarely with the attorney. That means every AI-assisted draft must be thoroughly reviewed, fact-checked, cite-checked, and edited before it ever reaches a client, colleague, court, or opposing counsel. It may generate incorrect names, dates, or jurisdictions. It may confidently cite cases that don’t exist or apply legal rules inaccurately. These errors aren’t always obvious, and that’s exactly why verification is non-negotiable. Every document produced with AI assistance should undergo a full review by a licensed attorney. There’s no such thing as a “good enough” AI draft—not if it’s going to represent the firm’s reputation or affect a client’s matter.
Citation validation is particularly critical. Even tools designed for legal use can misattribute precedent or cite outdated or irrelevant authority. It is not enough to skim for formatting—citations must be cross-referenced against trusted legal databases like Westlaw or Lexis. If an AI draft includes a case you’ve never heard of, look it up. If it paraphrases a holding, check the original language. In some cases, side-by-side comparisons between the AI draft and the corrected final version can be a helpful internal exercise, highlighting common missteps like incorrect party names, wrong jurisdictions, or misstated procedural posture. These aren’t just minor errors—they are credibility risks.
Equally important is editing for tone, structure, and alignment with firm or client expectations. AI does not write in your voice. It doesn’t know your firm’s preferred style or how a client expects to be addressed. Even if the substance is correct, the tone may be off—too casual, too formal, too vague, or too robotic. And in legal writing, tone matters. A poorly edited AI-generated memo, even if legally sound, reflects poorly on the firm’s professionalism and attention to detail.
To support consistency, firms should consider adopting a standard quality-control checklist for AI-assisted work. Before anything goes out the door, the attorney should confirm whether the document is factually accurate. Are all citations verified and properly formatted? Has the writing been edited for tone, clarity, and structure? Does the final product meet or exceed the expectations of the client or the court? If the answer to any of those is no, a document is not ready—no matter how fast it came together.
Responsible AI Innovation
AI offers real potential to enhance legal practice—but that potential comes with responsibility. Effective use of AI requires deliberate preparation, a strong understanding of ethical obligations, and rigorous oversight at every stage. When paired with sound legal judgment, clear firm policies, and a commitment to accuracy, AI can be a powerful tool for efficiency and insight. But it is just that—a tool. The future of law will absolutely include AI, but it will still be shaped by lawyers who lead with diligence, integrity, and the discipline that defines excellent legal work.