Use AI to accelerate first drafts of legal documents and correspondence — clauses, briefs, memos, letters, emails — brainstorm approaches, refine through iterative dialogue, and structure or consolidate content from multiple sources into polished communications.
The lawyer directs the task, provides context, decides strategy and tone, challenges and refines AI output, and applies legal judgment — especially to validate accuracy, tailor to jurisdiction and facts, and take professional accountability for final advice and wording.
The lawyer feeds key facts and controlling standards, then iteratively challenges the AI to tighten issue framing, improve argument structure, and rewrite sections in the client's voice while the lawyer verifies and edits the legal support.
Thomson Reuters CoCounsel / Lexis+ AIThe lawyer pastes a clause and negotiation position, has the AI propose redlines and fallback language, and then iterates through risk tolerances and counterparty pushback scenarios before final attorney review.
Harvey / Microsoft Word (Harvey Word Add-In)AI proposes initial clause language and fallback options based on a playbook, which the lawyer edits to match the deal terms and governing law.
SpellbookAI turns a fact outline into a first-pass pleading or motion structure with draft sections for attorney refinement and citation checking.
Thomson Reuters CoCounsel DraftingAI drafts a client-facing memo or email summarizing options and risks from lawyer-provided facts, enabling faster iteration before sending.
Harvey / Microsoft CopilotAI generates a structured list of the key issues to address (facts to confirm, relevant sections to cite, and requested remedies) before the lawyer drafts a letter or email.
ChatGPT / ClaudeAI proposes multiple tone variants (firm-but-collaborative, escalation-ready, conciliatory) for the same position so the lawyer can choose the best approach for the relationship and risk profile.
Microsoft Copilot for OutlookAI turns the lawyer's rough notes into a properly organized letter/email (background, position, demands, deadlines, and next steps) for editing.
Microsoft Copilot for WordAI combines overlapping content from multiple emails into one consolidated draft with headings and a clean chronology for lawyer revision.
ChatGPT / ClaudeYup. I use AI to brainstorm sometimes, but the last time I used AI to synthesize my thoughts into a very important letter/email draft, it still took me hours to get into the form I wanted. It is all my work in the end with just a little help with structure and pulling two different emails together into one. Probably saved me 1 hour of 5? So, helpful, but not doing my work for me
I’ve never cared for the term “prompt“ for AI.
I use Claude ai regularly, but I don’t think of what I do as prompting it. I’ll ask questions, have it ask me questions, engage it, berate it, push it to do better.
I find working with AI is an iterative process.
I think too many lawyers treat an AI model like a sycophantic search engine that has a tendency to make things up (although I find that the latest models seem to have greatly reduced hallucinations). But that misses the point. This is a computer you can “program“ by talking to it. You can hone the algorithm with just a sentence.
Legal Practice – AI empowerment not AI replacement
I read a very recent article where a Tech CEO stated “So white-collar work, where you’re sitting down at a computer, either being a lawyer or an accountant or a project manager or a marketing person – most of those tasks will be fully automated by an AI within the next 12 to 18 months.”
Working at InfoTrack I’ve come to spend more and more time using and understanding AI not least of all because we at InfoTrack are fully committed to AI and AI-enabling products for the benefit of our clients and the profession, but I am also exposed to how the profession is adopting and using AI.
Yes the rate of AI adoption in the legal industry is unprecedented, and not a day goes by when I don’t look back on a career spent trying to convince law Firms to early-adopt and wish we had seen this rate of adoption all along, but the stated narrative in the article definitely doesn’t track with what I’m seeing and experiencing…
AI is already excellent at tasks, like drafting, summarising, extracting key information, analysing large datasets and it will undoubtedly keep improving, but last time I checked the practice of law is not a collection of isolated tasks. It’s sound judgement under uncertainty, it’s risk allocation, it’s navigating ambiguity and it’s advising a clear path forward when there isn’t a clean answer to be found, and critically — it’s a lawyer’s willingness to be held accountable and stand behind their advice.
Legal work operates inside a framework of licensing, professional standards, insurance, regulation and personal liability. Clients aren’t paying for text generation or task completion, clients are paying for sound judgement and accountability. Technology can accelerate output, but it does not automatically assume responsibility – and that distinction matters.
So, I believe what’s far more realistic to expect than eradication of the profession is acceleration and augmentation. Routine work compresses, turnaround improves, capacity increases and the relative value of judgement, strategy and client counsel goes up. That doesn’t weaken the profession - it sharpens it. Big automation claims generate urgency and urgency generates uptake, but professions built on trust and regulation don’t transform overnight. They evolve deliberately — especially where accountability sits squarely with a human.
AI will reshape legal work there’s no doubt about that, but replacement is a very different claim from transformation.
I’m optimistic about AI in legal, but I’m just as optimistic about lawyers. I don’t believe the immediate future is AI replacing the profession — it’s AI empowering it. In the right hands, AI can unlock enormous upside, including greater access to the law and to legal representation.