Have students do the work before using AI.<\/strong>\u00a0Ask\u00a0them\u00a0to\u00a0read the cases, identify the issues, and write\u00a0their\u00a0analysis.\u00a0Then let them\u00a0compare it with an AI draft. What did the tool get right? What did it miss? What did the student change, and why? The answers will tell a professor more than a polished paper alone.<\/p>\n Give students a good-looking memo with bad analysis.<\/strong>\u00a0Include an unsupported fact, an overlooked exception, or a case that does not say what the writer claims. Have students find and fix the problems. They should be able to point to the source and explain the mistake, not just say that a paragraph feels wrong.<\/p>\n Ask students to defend their advice.<\/strong>\u00a0After a student submits a paper, sit down and talk about it. Why that recommendation? What would the other side say? Which fact would change the answer? A student may write around a gap in understanding. A conversation makes that harder and prepares the student for questions from a partner or client.<\/p>\n Get students into supervised work with clients.<\/strong> Clinics, interviews, and negotiations give students practice they cannot get from an exam alone. Include exercises where facts are missing or accounts conflict. When a client changes the story halfway through an interview, the student\u00a0has to\u00a0listen, follow up, and reconsider the advice. That is part of learning to practice law.<\/p>\n Put a budget on the assignment.<\/strong>\u00a0Give students a dispute and a client who cannot afford every deposition or motion. Ask what they would do first, what they would skip, and what risk the client would take as a result. They need to learn to explain why an expense is worth it, not just why a procedural step is available.<\/p>\n Teach the checks along with the\u00a0tools.<\/strong>\u00a0Students should know which tools they may use, what\u00a0information they must keep out of them, and\u00a0how to check the cases\u00a0they cite.\u00a0ABA Formal Opinion 512<\/a>\u00a0explains that review depends on the tool and task, while\u00a0the lawyer remains responsible for the work. Require those checks on every assignment, not just in\u00a0an AI class.<\/p>\n What Young Lawyers Should Do<\/strong><\/p>\n Start with your own answer.<\/strong>\u00a0Before you ask AI, write down what you think and which facts support it. Then use the tool to challenge your analysis. When you turn in the assignment, explain where you changed your mind and why. Your supervisor needs to see your reasoning to help you improve it.<\/p>\n Get to know the law you use.<\/strong>\u00a0Read the\u00a0rules,\u00a0the\u00a0important\u00a0cases, and\u00a0the\u00a0filings in\u00a0your\u00a0matters. When you can, follow\u00a0an issue\u00a0through the hearing or resolution\u00a0instead of stopping when you finish the memo.\u00a0Seeing how the issue played out will help you understand which arguments were worth making and which points you missed. You will have more to draw on when you review the next AI draft.<\/p>\n Check the work before handing it over.<\/strong>\u00a0Read the cases and check whether they\u00a0still apply. Match important factual statements to the record. If you cannot resolve a question, flag it and explain what you need. Your partner should be reviewing your analysis, not discovering that a cited case does not\u00a0exist\u00a0or a witness never said what the draft attributes to them.<\/p>\n Ask to do part of the work yourself.<\/strong>\u00a0Offer to draft\u00a0a witness outline, handle part of\u00a0a client\u00a0interview, or argue a limited issue when your supervisor\u00a0thinks\u00a0you\u00a0are\u00a0ready. Prepare, get feedback,\u00a0and ask\u00a0what you missed.\u00a0You cannot rush experience, but you can ask for assignments that give you more of it.<\/p>\n Study the edits you get back.<\/strong>\u00a0Do not just accept the changes and move on. Compare the drafts. Figure out why your partner changed an argument, dropped a point, or qualified a conclusion. Ask when you do not understand. Keep notes you can use on the next\u00a0assignment\u00a0so you don\u2019t have to make the same correction\u00a0again.<\/p>\n Be dependable.<\/strong>\u00a0Meet deadlines and return calls. If you are stuck or running late, say so while there is still time to help. Learn what the client cares about beyond your assignment.\u00a0A partner who knows you will follow through is\u00a0more\u00a0likely to\u00a0bring you into client conversations. Listen to the questions clients ask and how your partner answers them.<\/p>\n What Young Partners Should Do<\/strong><\/p>\n Learn how the client\u2019s business works.<\/strong>\u00a0Ask what the dispute is disrupting, who will make the decisions, and what result the client could live with. A motion may be worth filing as a matter of law and still be a poor use of the client\u2019s money. Explain that distinction. A faster draft does not replace knowing what your client needs.<\/p>\n Tell associates why you changed their work.<\/strong> Rewriting a draft yourself may be faster today. But if you never explain the changes, you may have to make them again tomorrow. Pick the edits that mattered most and talk them through. What was missing? Why was the argument weak? Why did you recommend a different course?<\/p>\n Leave room for associates to learn.<\/strong>\u00a0Give an associate a defined issue to handle and ask for a recommendation before reviewing the work. Bring the associate to\u00a0the client conversation when appropriate. Let them hear the questions and see why the advice changes. If they only see your final draft, they miss much of the lesson.<\/p>\n Be clear about who checks the work.<\/strong>\u00a0Tell\u00a0your team\u00a0which tools\u00a0they can use\u00a0and\u00a0what information\u00a0they\u00a0must keep out of them. Assign someone to review the work before it goes to the client, and make sure lawyers raise questions they cannot answer. Try\u00a0the tools\u00a0on the tasks you assign.\u00a0You need to know\u00a0when a draft is a useful start and when it will take longer to fix than to write yourself.<\/p>\n Count the time it takes to finish the job.<\/strong>\u00a0Getting adraft\u00a0in minutes\u00a0means little if it takes\u00a0hours\u00a0to check\u00a0and\u00a0rewrite.\u00a0Track the\u00a0research, revisions, and discussions needed before the work can go to the client.\u00a0Use that information\u00a0to set fees and staffing. Don\u2019t cut the time spent teaching associates; it\u00a0may save you repeated corrections later.<\/p>\n Look beyond years in practice when hiring.<\/strong>\u00a0Give candidates a hypothetical file and a flawed draft. Ask what they would fix, what they recommend, and how a changed fact would affect their advice. Do this with laterals as well as new lawyers. Then make time to teach the people you hire. You cannot count on another firm to train every lawyer you will need.<\/p>\n Give People a Reason to Trust Your Wor<\/strong>k<\/strong><\/p>\n No one can promise young lawyers that learning these skills will protect their jobs. But they need to know how to use AI without relying on an answer they cannot explain. That means reading\u00a0the cases, knowing\u00a0the record, and asking\u00a0for help when\u00a0the answer is unclear. Schools and firms\u00a0have\u00a0to\u00a0give them opportunities to do that work under supervision. We cannot expect experienced judgment from new lawyers while\u00a0taking away their chances to practice.<\/p>\n The person in\u00a0that hiring conversation\u00a0wanted\u00a0work\u00a0they\u00a0could\u00a0send to a\u00a0client without\u00a0spending\u00a0a full day\u00a0fixing it. Young lawyers need to understand that concern. Before you hand over a draft, check it and decide what you recommend. If your partner asks why, you should be able to explain your answer \u2014 and say where you still need help.<\/p>\n Frank Ramos is a partner at Goldberg Segalla in Miami, where he practices commercial litigation, products, and catastrophic personal injury.\u00a0You can follow him on\u00a0LinkedIn<\/a>, where he has about 80,000 followers<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n The post Making Yourself\u00a0AI-Proof<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n In a\u00a0recent conversation about hiring, someone told me they\u00a0wanted\u00a0a lawyer\u00a0who could use AI\u00a0and\u00a0judge the work it produced. I understood the concern.\u00a0An experienced lawyer could learn the\u00a0tool\u00a0and\u00a0draw on\u00a0years of\u00a0practice\u00a0to\u00a0check its answers.\u00a0A new lawyer might\u00a0be comfortable with AI but still need help deciding whether the work was right.<\/p>\n Suppose\u00a0I can teach someone to use AI faster than I can teach someone to practice law;\u00a0that\u00a0affects whom I\u00a0hire. Some AI drafts I have reviewed\u00a0are comparable to work I would expect from a first- or second-year associate. A senior lawyer\u00a0knows where to look for\u00a0weak arguments and unsupported\u00a0assumptions, and\u00a0what needs to change before the\u00a0draft\u00a0goes to a client.<\/p>\n That worries me for\u00a0young lawyers.\u00a0A firm may\u00a0use AI to\u00a0handle\u00a0more work with\u00a0the\u00a0lawyers\u00a0it already\u00a0has, or hire a lateral who needs less supervision.\u00a0New lawyers\u00a0need experience,\u00a0yet those choices\u00a0may\u00a0leave them with fewer chances to get it.\u00a0They\u00a0still\u00a0have to\u00a0learn\u00a0to\u00a0recognize\u00a0a bad answer and\u00a0work out a better one. Schools and firms\u00a0cannot leave them to figure that out alone.<\/p>\n What Law Schools Should Do<\/strong><\/p>\n Have students do the work before using AI.<\/strong>\u00a0Ask\u00a0them\u00a0to\u00a0read the cases, identify the issues, and write\u00a0their\u00a0analysis.\u00a0Then let them\u00a0compare it with an AI draft. What did the tool get right? What did it miss? What did the student change, and why? The answers will tell a professor more than a polished paper alone.<\/p>\n Give students a good-looking memo with bad analysis.<\/strong>\u00a0Include an unsupported fact, an overlooked exception, or a case that does not say what the writer claims. Have students find and fix the problems. They should be able to point to the source and explain the mistake, not just say that a paragraph feels wrong.<\/p>\n Ask students to defend their advice.<\/strong>\u00a0After a student submits a paper, sit down and talk about it. Why that recommendation? What would the other side say? Which fact would change the answer? A student may write around a gap in understanding. A conversation makes that harder and prepares the student for questions from a partner or client.<\/p>\n Get students into supervised work with clients.<\/strong> Clinics, interviews, and negotiations give students practice they cannot get from an exam alone. Include exercises where facts are missing or accounts conflict. When a client changes the story halfway through an interview, the student\u00a0has to\u00a0listen, follow up, and reconsider the advice. That is part of learning to practice law.<\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2025\/07\/RamosFrank_Web.png\" "\\"\\"")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2025\/08\/GettyImages-1475813704-300x200.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n