Large language models are good at producing text that has the shape of a correct legal answer — the right structure, the right vocabulary, citations formatted the way citations are supposed to look. They are not reliable at ensuring that shape is filled with true content. A model can generate a case name, a citation and a holding that all look completely plausible and do not exist. This is not a minor quirk to work around. It is the central fact that should shape how any legal researcher uses these tools.
The one rule
Treat every fact, citation, quotation or case name an AI tool gives you as a lead, not a fact. A lead tells you where to look. It is not a substitute for looking. If you cannot independently verify a citation against a primary source — the judgment itself, the statute itself, a reporter you trust — it does not go in your work product.
A five-step workflow
- Scope the question narrowly before opening any tool. A vague prompt produces a vague, more easily wrong answer.
- Use AI to generate a first map of the issue — likely doctrines, likely relevant statutes, plausible search terms — not a final answer.
- Independently locate every case, statute or provision the AI mentioned, using a primary source or a reporter you trust. If you can't find it, it doesn't exist for your purposes.
- Re-read the primary source yourself for the actual holding, not the AI's summary of the holding. Summaries are where subtle misstatements hide.
- Only then draft your analysis, citing the primary source you verified, not the AI output that pointed you toward it.
AI assists the process. Human research and verification remain responsible for the final legal work.
Where AI genuinely helps
Used this way, AI is genuinely useful for the slow parts of research that don't require judgment: surfacing search terms you wouldn't have thought of, summarising a long judgment you've already decided to read in full so you know what to look for, restructuring your own draft for clarity. It is not useful, and actively dangerous, as a source of legal facts you haven't independently checked.
A note on drafting
The same rule extends to drafting. AI can help structure a memo or tighten prose. It should never be the source of the legal propositions the memo relies on. If a sentence in your draft asserts what the law says, you should be able to point to the primary source you read yourself, not the tool that suggested the sentence.
References
- [1]Editorial principles — Legal Chronicle — accuracy and verification standards.
Rohan writes about how legal practice is changing under pressure from new tools, and how students can use those tools without cutting corners on rigor.