AI can help you organize a timeline, understand unfamiliar wording, and prepare questions for a lawyer. Its output still needs checking: a fluent answer can omit an exception, use the wrong jurisdiction, or invent a legal source.
This guide is for U.S. readers preparing for a legal conversation or trying to understand a routine civil problem. It provides general information. The law that applies to your situation depends on the facts, place, court and date.
Give AI a bounded preparation task
Begin with an output you can check against something you already have: a source document, a set of dates, or a public explanation. A general chatbot, a legal research product and a lawyer using AI within a reviewed workflow provide different services. Establish who checks the work and who is responsible for the advice.
The following are suggested preparation tasks, not claims that every tool performs them reliably.
| Task and input | Useful output | Your check |
|---|---|---|
| Explain a public court help page | A plain-language explanation of a term or instruction | Compare with the original, including exceptions and links. Ask court staff procedural questions within their role. |
| Organize a minimized fact list | A chronology with a source beside each event | Check every date, person and amount. Separate an allegation from an established fact. |
| Compare two permitted document versions | A list of apparent additions, deletions and changed wording | Use a document comparison tool and inspect the originals. Ask a lawyer about the legal effect. |
| Prepare for a consultation | Questions, missing records and a short issue summary | Keep your actual priorities and uncertainties. Remove assumptions introduced by the tool. |
| Clarify a factual customer-service draft | A shorter account and a clear request | Check tone, facts, admissions and proposed commitments before sending. |
Paying for a service or seeing links in its answer does not establish that its legal analysis is sound. In January 2025, the FTC finalized an order addressing deceptive claims about DoNotPay's AI legal service. Use that FTC case record as a reason to examine a provider's evidence and promises, rather than assuming that a legal-sounding product name guarantees expertise.
Choose what you can safely share
Start with a fictional example or a public document. Before using real records, ask whether the task requires them and whether you are permitted to disclose them. Personal identifiers, account numbers, medical information, children's details, confidential business material, sealed records and lawyer communications deserve particular care.
Check the provider's current terms and the settings for your particular account: who can access inputs, how long material is retained, whether it is used for training, what connected tools receive, and what deletion actually removes. A general marketing statement may leave these questions unanswered.
Removing a name can leave a person identifiable through dates, addresses or context. Redaction is not a guarantee of anonymity. If a lawyer is already handling the matter, ask before uploading case documents or their advice. Do not assume a chatbot conversation has attorney-client privilege; the consequences of sharing material require a fact-specific assessment.
ABA Formal Opinion 512 discusses lawyers' duties to understand AI limitations, review work and protect client information. It is guidance under the ABA Model Rules, not a nationwide consumer rule. The practical lesson for a client is to ask how the lawyer's chosen workflow protects information and provides review.
Check sources, scope and missing facts
- Write down the jurisdiction and date. Identify the country, state, court or agency, type of issue and relevant time period. An answer that silently changes one of these may be unusable.
- Open the original source independently. Locate a cited law or decision on an official site or a reliable legal research service. Check the title, section or case number and the actual passage. A plausible citation can be invented.
- Check what the source establishes. Read surrounding language, definitions and exceptions. A real case may concern different facts or have been limited or overruled. Ask qualified counsel to assess applicability and current legal treatment.
- Compare the output with your records. Trace each factual sentence to an original item. Flag missing pages, uncertain dates and conflicting accounts instead of letting AI fill the gaps.
- Use current official forms and instructions. Verify the correct court, form version and filing process directly. Have deadlines checked from the actual rules and facts; avoid relying on a chatbot's date calculation.
Asking the same tool “Are you sure?” gives you another generated answer. Independent checking means going outside that answer to the underlying evidence. If you cannot complete a consequential check, mark the point unresolved and seek help before relying on it.
Worked example: a disputed repair invoice
This example and the sample output are invented for teaching. They demonstrate checking, not a tested product result or a legal conclusion.
The small source packet
- A — May 3 email: the repair company estimated $240 to repair an appliance.
- B — May 5 invoice: the company billed $390, including a separately listed $150 part.
- C — May 6 customer email: the customer asked for an explanation of the added part charge.
The packet contains no authorization for the extra part, no payment receipt and no reply from the company. Those records might exist elsewhere.
A prompt that keeps the task narrow
Using only fictional items A, B and C, make a timeline with a source item for each event. Mark missing or contradictory information. Do not add facts, legal conclusions, deadlines or citations. Then list questions I could ask a lawyer or consumer adviser.
Prompt wording helps define the task; you still need to check whether the output follows it.
| Constructed sample output | Evidence check | Corrected entry |
|---|---|---|
| “May 3: the company estimated $240.” | Matches item A. | May 3: $240 estimate received, source A. |
| “May 5: the customer approved the $150 part.” | Item B shows a charge, not approval. | May 5: $390 invoice received, including a $150 part; authorization is unconfirmed, source B. |
| “May 6: the customer requested an explanation.” | Matches item C. | May 6: explanation requested, source C; the packet contains no response. |
The arithmetic is simple: $390 minus $240 is $150. It establishes the difference between invoice and estimate, not whether the additional charge is legally owed. Useful next questions are: Is there another message authorizing the part? What did the estimate say about changes? What resolution does the customer want? Which local consumer rules or dispute process apply?
A checked summary for a consultation would say: “I received a $240 estimate and a $390 invoice. I asked about the additional $150 part charge. I have not yet located a record showing whether I authorized it.” This preserves the uncertainty without accusing anyone of a legal violation.
Before sending, signing or filing
Treat a proposed settlement, contract, will, legal claim or response to court papers as a decision needing advice about your circumstances. Clear prose can conceal a waived right, an admission or a missing requirement. AI can help you prepare questions about a clause; it cannot establish from polished wording alone that signing serves your interests.
Courts also have their own instructions. For example, Judge Emily Ruben's Kings County IDV rules require an affirmation about AI use and verification for specified legal research and writing submissions. That example applies to that court part. Check your own court, judge and case orders.
The Eastern District of Missouri's self-represented litigant guidance expressly holds filers responsible for material generated with AI. Keep that responsibility in view when reviewing a draft.
- Every factual statement agrees with a record or is clearly attributed as an account.
- Every legal citation has been located and checked for the point asserted.
- Names, amounts, attachments, court details and applicable instructions are checked.
- Sensitive information and any proposed admissions or commitments have received appropriate review.
- A qualified person has addressed consequential uncertainties and deadlines.
Make the next conversation useful
For civil legal problems, use LSC's legal-aid finder to locate a nearby funded provider; eligibility and available assistance vary. The ABA's Find Legal Help resources offer routes to legal information and referral services. Your court's official self-help page can explain forms and procedures within its scope.
Bring a short checked chronology, the original documents, your desired outcome and the questions you could not resolve. Ask about the scope and cost of help, whether limited-scope assistance is appropriate, and who will handle any urgent step.
If a lawyer uses AI, useful questions include: What task will it perform? What information will be shared? Who checks its output? How are the tool's use and the review reflected in the fee arrangement? For a concern about an existing lawyer, see understanding lawyer problems and finding help.