Paralegals do much of the structured work in a law office: building chronologies, tracking deadlines, organizing discovery, preparing exhibits and drafting routine correspondence. That structure makes the work a good match for AI tools. It also means paralegals are often the ones pasting client material into them, so firm policy and the supervising lawyer’s instructions come first.
Under ABA Model Rule 5.3, lawyers with supervisory authority must make reasonable efforts to ensure that nonlawyer assistants act consistently with the lawyer’s own obligations. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) applies that to generative AI: firms should set clear policies on permitted use and train staff on them.
Six tasks and their review steps
| Task | What the AI produces | Review step before use |
|---|---|---|
| Chronology | Date-ordered table from document summaries | Check each entry against the source document |
| Privilege log descriptions | Consistent descriptions from metadata | Attorney approves privilege calls and wording |
| Discovery tracking | Table of requests, responses, objections, due dates | Confirm deadlines against the rules and the docket |
| Deposition prep outline | Topic outline from case summary | Attorney reviews before it goes to the witness file |
| Correspondence drafts | Cover letters, scheduling emails | Attorney signs off where required |
| Cite-check prep | List of citations to pull and verify | Paralegal pulls and reads each one |
Every prompt below produces a draft. The supervising lawyer is responsible for what leaves the office, and the paralegal is responsible for checking the draft against the record first.
1. Chronology from document summaries
Below are short summaries of documents from a matter, each with a Bates number and date. Client and party names are replaced with roles.
[PASTE: Bates | date | summary]
Build a chronology table sorted by date: date, event, Bates reference, people involved (by role).
Flag entries where the date is uncertain or where two documents conflict.
Do not add events that aren't in the summaries.2. Privilege log descriptions
Write privilege log descriptions for these documents. Use the format: [document type] from [author role] to [recipient role] [providing/requesting] legal advice regarding [general subject].
Do not reveal the substance of the advice.
[PASTE: doc type | author role | recipient roles | date | general subject]The privilege call itself is the attorney’s. The tool only standardizes the wording.
3. Discovery tracker
Convert these discovery requests and our draft responses into a tracking table: request number, topic in five words, objection (yes/no and type), documents produced (Bates range), status, due date.
[PASTE REQUESTS AND RESPONSE NOTES]4. Deposition topic outline
From this case summary (party names replaced with roles), draft a topic outline for the deposition of [WITNESS ROLE].
Group topics in a logical order, list the exhibits that may be relevant to each, and note any gaps in the record that questioning could fill.
[CASE SUMMARY]5. Scheduling and cover correspondence
Routine emails to court reporters, opposing counsel’s staff and clients about logistics are low-risk drafting. A short prompt with the date options and the tone is enough.
6. Cite-check preparation
List every citation in this brief section in the order it appears, with the proposition it is cited for. Do not check or correct them. I will pull each one.
[PASTE SECTION]That last instruction keeps the tool in its lane. It can extract and list citations reliably enough to save time, but it shouldn’t be trusted to say whether a case says what the brief claims.
Habits that make drafts easier to check
- Keep source references in every row. A chronology entry without a Bates number can’t be verified quickly, so the prompt should demand one.
- Replace names with roles before pasting. “Plaintiff’s supervisor” works as well as a name for most drafting, and it limits what the tool receives.
- Ask for flags, not fixes. Prompts that ask the tool to point out conflicts or gaps produce output a paralegal can check, while prompts that ask it to resolve them invite guesses.
- Save the prompt with the work product. If an attorney asks how a table was built, the answer is on file.
Choosing where to run each task
Tasks 5 and 6 can usually run in any tool the firm has approved, because they involve little or no confidential substance. Tasks 1 to 4 involve client and case material. Most firms route those through a legal platform under contract, whose terms the firm has reviewed, rather than a general chatbot. The best AI for lawyers list covers several of those platforms.
Don’t paste this in
Client confidential information, privileged communications or documents under a protective order into any tool the firm hasn’t approved for them. ABA Formal Opinion 512 says client information shouldn’t go into a self-learning AI tool without the client’s informed consent, and boilerplate engagement-letter language doesn’t count. Paralegals should also keep out personal identifiers of witnesses and third parties, medical records, and opposing parties’ confidential productions unless the supervising lawyer has cleared the specific tool.
The wider picture for attorneys, including consent, fees and supervision, is in how lawyers use AI, and where they shouldn’t.