AI as Co-Counsel: Enhancing Legal Drafting in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

This article is the second of the mini-series to introduce how AI can assist legal professionals with drafting legal documents. Specifically, we will be focusing on court filings and pleadings.

Court filings and pleadings refer to formal documents submitted to the court regarding the legal case parties are involved in. Specifically, court pleadings are documents that serve to outline the details of the case, including each party’s position, allegations, evidence, and legal claims. Court filings are a broader set of legal documents that include briefs, affidavits, motions, and other related documents. Leveraging AI will enable legal professionals to keep track of drafting such documents.

In the fast-paced legal environment, it is of utmost importance to draft court filings and pleadings that are persuasive, accurate, and compliant with necessary legal requirements. Recently, the advent of generative AI models like ChatGPT with remarkable performances is simplifying the meticulous and daunting process of drafting such documents. These models have emerged to provide meaningful assistance and suggestions to legal professionals as they seek to leverage AI’s potential.

With a robust understanding of the capabilities of AI tools, legal professionals draft court filings with unprecedented efficiency, focusing more on client advocacy and case strategy development. Throughout the article, we will explore examples of several prompts lawyers, and paralegals can utilize to leverage their invaluable assets.

Drafting Specific Court Pleadings

Legal professionals may provide details regarding the court case, and AI can generate an initial draft. Generative AI tools can provide general key concepts for legal professionals to expand on while assisting in drafting specific sections of court pleadings based on the attributes of the case. Here is an example:

Prompt:

“Draft a conclusion for a court pleading in a family law case regarding child custody, highlighting the best interests of the child and seeking a specific custody arrangement.”

Response:

“In conclusion, it is imperative that the best interests of the child be the primary consideration in determining the custody arrangement in this family law case. The welfare and overall well-being of the child should always take precedence over any personal or emotional desires of the parties involved.

After careful consideration of all relevant factors, including the child's age, developmental needs, and the demonstrated ability of each parent to provide a safe, stable, and nurturing environment, it is evident that a specific custody arrangement would be most beneficial for the child.

[Provide details of the specific custody arrangement you are seeking, such as joint physical custody, sole physical custody, or a combination of both, depending on the circumstances and the child's best interests.]

This proposed custody arrangement takes into account the child's need for a consistent and meaningful relationship with both parents, while also prioritizing their safety, stability, and overall development. It seeks to minimize any disruption to the child's routine and promote a healthy co-parenting relationship between the parties involved.

Furthermore, this custody arrangement aligns with the prevailing legal standards and guidelines established to safeguard the best interests of children in similar cases. It is supported by substantial evidence, testimonies, and expert opinions that attest to its suitability and potential to foster the child's emotional and physical well-being.

In light of the aforementioned considerations, we respectfully urge this honorable court to adopt the proposed custody arrangement as it provides the most conducive environment for the child to thrive and flourish. By prioritizing their best interests, we can ensure that the child's rights, happiness, and long-term prospects are safeguarded, ultimately facilitating their growth into a well-adjusted and fulfilled individual.

May the court's decision reflect the paramount importance of the child's best interests and contribute to their overall welfare, setting a precedent that underscores the significance of such considerations in all family law cases.”

Here is another example of requesting AI to draft customizable court documents.

Prompt:

“Provide an opening paragraph for a motion to compel discovery responses, tailored to a specific civil litigation matter.”

Response:

“[Your Name], counsel for the plaintiff [Plaintiff's Name], respectfully moves this honorable court to compel the defendant [Defendant's Name] to provide complete and timely responses to the discovery requests propounded on [Date of Request] in the above-mentioned civil litigation matter. Despite the passage of [Number of Days/Weeks/Months] since the requests were served, the defendant has failed to comply with their obligations under the applicable rules of civil procedure, impeding the plaintiff's ability to gather crucial evidence necessary for the fair adjudication of this case. This motion seeks to remedy the defendant's noncompliance and ensure that the discovery process proceeds in a just and expeditious manner.”

Case Background and Legal Precedent Research

Referring back to the article on how AI can empower legal professionals in legal research, we briefly covered legal precedent and background research. When drafting court filings and pleadings, those prompts are helpful. Legal practitioners can request AI to draft sections of court filings or pleadings that incorporate case background information and legal research.

Prompt:

“Draft a section of a court filing analyzing relevant case precedents and legal principles for a discrimination claim in an employment law case.”

Response:

“I am writing on behalf of the Plaintiff, [Plaintiff's Name], in the above-captioned case to submit this memorandum of law in support of our discrimination claim. This memorandum analyzes relevant case precedents and legal principles that demonstrate the merit of our claim under employment law.

I. Introduction

[Provide a brief introduction outlining the nature of the case and the specific discrimination claim being asserted.]

II. Legal Standards

A. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, including hiring, promotion, compensation, and termination.

B. Relevant Case Precedents

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)

In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, the United States Supreme Court established the burden-shifting framework for analyzing disparate treatment claims under Title VII. This framework requires the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they were qualified for the position or benefit sought; (3) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably. Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must then show that the proffered reason is merely pretextual.

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981)

In Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, the Supreme Court clarified the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. The Court held that once the defendant meets its burden of articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination. To establish pretext, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer that the employer's stated reason is not the true reason for the employment action.

III. Application of Legal Principles to the Present Case

[Provide an analysis of how the relevant legal standards and case precedents apply to the facts of the present case, highlighting how the plaintiff has met the elements of a prima facie case and has presented evidence of pretext.]

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis, it is clear that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII. Additionally, the evidence presented raises genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendant's proffered reason for the adverse employment action, supporting an inference of pretext. Therefore, we respectfully request that the court deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment and allow this discrimination claim to proceed to trial.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Below is another practical example:

Prompt:

“Generate a paragraph outlining the legal arguments and authorities supporting a motion for summary judgment in a copyright infringement lawsuit.”

Response:

“In support of a motion for summary judgment in a copyright infringement lawsuit, several legal arguments and authorities can be invoked. First and foremost, the plaintiff must establish ownership of the copyrighted work and demonstrate that the defendant copied substantial elements of the work without authorization. The plaintiff can cite the Copyright Act, which grants exclusive rights to the owner of a copyright and prohibits unauthorized reproduction, distribution, display, and creation of derivative works. Additionally, the plaintiff can rely on established case law, such as precedent set by landmark copyright infringement cases, to establish the elements of infringement and the standard of proof required.

The plaintiff can argue that the defendant's use of the copyrighted work falls within one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, such as reproduction or distribution, without obtaining the necessary licenses or permissions. The plaintiff can also emphasize that the defendant's use was not transformative, meaning it did not add new expression, meaning, or message to the original work, which can be a crucial factor in determining fair use.

Moreover, the plaintiff can present evidence to demonstrate that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and that the similarities between the works are so striking that they can only be explained by copying. Expert testimony and forensic analysis of the works can further support this argument, showing substantial similarities in the elements, structure, or overall concept of the works.

Furthermore, the plaintiff can assert that the defendant's alleged infringement has caused harm, such as financial loss or damage to the plaintiff's reputation, which can be crucial in determining the appropriate remedies. The plaintiff can cite statutory damages available under the Copyright Act, which can be awarded even without proving actual damages, as well as the possibility of injunctive relief to prevent further infringement.

In summary, a motion for summary judgment in a copyright infringement lawsuit can be supported by legal arguments grounded in the Copyright Act, relevant case law, evidence of unauthorized copying, lack of transformative use, and the resulting harm suffered by the copyright owner. By presenting a compelling case supported by legal authorities, the plaintiff can seek a favorable ruling and resolution in their copyright infringement claim.”

Moving Forward

Though AI models can empower legal professionals in drafting court filings, it is up to the legal professional’s discretion to prevent overreliance on such tools. While AI is a powerful assistant, final drafts of court filings and pleadings must be reviewed thoroughly by the legal practitioners in charge who are most knowledgeable of the specific case. In the following article, we will explore the final piece of how AI can empower lawyers and paralegals in drafting legal documents.