For general counsel work, use AI to attack the package for missing adverse cases and soft claims, not to invent law.
Legal strategy memos fail when they bury the adverse case, skip jurisdiction limits, or treat a preferred reading as settled. Contract reviews fail when obligations, termination, and data terms are skimmed. Disclosure drafts fail when the narrative and the facts the company already knows diverge. None of those problems is fixed by a fluent first draft from a blank prompt.
Where AI helps counsel
Feed the existing memo, redlines, or disclosure draft into a review that is told to break it. Ask for the adverse reading, the facts that would reverse the conclusion, the undefined terms, and the sentences that imply certainty the exhibits do not support. Keep human judgment on privilege, strategy, and what leaves the building.
AI is also useful for consistency passes across a long pack: defined terms that drift, cross-references that point nowhere, and business claims in a disclosure draft that outrun the diligence file. It is a poor substitute for jurisdiction-specific advice and a worse substitute for deciding risk appetite.
Brief checklist
- Decision or ask in one sentence, with deadline and audience.
- Primary exhibits you are allowed to share outside privilege walls.
- Jurisdiction, governing law, and constraints already treated as fixed.
- The adverse case you have not yet written down.
- Any claim that would be embarrassing if a counterparty quoted it back.
- What must remain privileged and therefore out of the prompt.
How to run it
Open Pingpong with the package and seats for counsel, business owner, and a skeptical counterparty. Sequential multi-model review fits because later models can challenge earlier soft approvals instead of repeating them. Verify every suggested citation and fact against the source file. Drop invented authority. Prefer edits that clarify uncertainty and ownership over edits that add confident tone.
When the package mixes legal analysis and business advocacy, split the passes. One pass should read only as counsel hunting adverse cases and soft certainty. A later pass can read as the business owner who wants the deal done. Mixing those mandates in one prompt usually produces a compromise tone that satisfies neither seat. Keep privilege boundaries explicit in every prompt so nothing that must stay inside counsel walls is pasted into a tool that is not approved for that use.
Related: AI for high-stakes decisions, before you sign the contract, AI decision review, A-minus to A-plus review, catch AI mistakes before you commit, and stress-test an M&A thesis. See how it works.