Cut research time without cutting corners. We help firms choose the right AI research tools, structure prompts that return usable results, and verify everything before it goes into a brief.
AI-assisted legal research can genuinely compress hours of work into minutes — finding analogous fact patterns, summarizing a body of case law, or surfacing a statute you didn't know applied. The trouble is that general-purpose AI models were not built to be legal databases. They can produce answers that sound authoritative and are simply wrong: cases that don't exist, holdings that are reversed on appeal, or statutes that have since been amended.
We help firms use AI research tools in a way that captures the speed without inheriting the risk — pairing the right tool with the right task, and never treating an AI-generated answer as a finished citation.
AI tools are well-suited to the front end of research: identifying the right search terms, surfacing analogous cases you might not have found through keyword search alone, and summarizing long opinions quickly. They are not a substitute for shepardizing, and they should never be the last step before a citation goes into a filed document. Our process makes that boundary explicit and easy for your team to follow.
We look at how long research currently takes on common matter types and where AI can realistically help.
We recommend and help set up AI research tools suited to your practice area and budget, from general models to specialized legal platforms.
Associates learn how to structure research prompts that return specific, usable answers — and how to spot an answer that needs a closer look.
We build a simple, mandatory check so every AI-surfaced case or statute is confirmed against a primary source before it's relied on.
No. General-purpose AI models are useful for early-stage research — finding search terms, summarizing opinions, identifying analogous fact patterns — but they are not reliable as a citation source on their own. Traditional legal databases remain necessary for verification and shepardizing.
The main risk is fabricated or inaccurate case citations that sound plausible. A secondary risk is confidentiality: entering identifiable client facts into a general AI tool can expose privileged information. Both risks are manageable with the right tool selection and workflow.
Always confirm it independently in a primary legal database before relying on it — search for the case by name and citation, read the actual opinion, and confirm it hasn't been overturned or superseded. Never cite a case solely because an AI tool mentioned it.
Generally yes, with guardrails. Junior associates often get the most time savings from AI-assisted research, but they also need the clearest verification habits since they're less likely to instinctively catch a suspicious-looking citation.
Bring your current workflow — even if it's just associates using ChatGPT informally — and we'll map the fastest safe path forward.
Book a free consult