How to Document AI Research Verification in the Matter File

01 / PRACTICE NOTES

A review record proves the inquiry that Rules 11 and 1.1 expect.

When a court questions a citation, the first request is an explanation of what the lawyer did to check it. The sanctions orders in Mata v. Avianca, Wadsworth v. Walmart and Gauthier v. Goodyear each recount the lawyers’ responses to show-cause orders or hearings, and Wadsworth credited the drafting attorney’s honesty and candor as a mitigating fact. A contemporaneous record gives you the facts of your review in writing rather than from memory.

The record also serves your supervisory duties. ABA Formal Opinion 512 tells managerial lawyers to establish clear policies on generative AI and supervisory lawyers to make reasonable efforts to ensure compliance, including training. California’s 2026 guidance adds that the duty of competence includes periodic reassessment of an AI system’s capabilities and risks as it changes. A shared template for the record turns those policies into a habit that every lawyer and assistant can follow.

02 / PRACTICE NOTES

Record five things for every AI-assisted work product.

Keep the record short enough that people complete it. One page per work product is enough when each entry points to the document that holds the detail. The first example is illustrative: “Oct. 29. Research memo on the lease termination issue, drafted in RuleX. Documents entered: lease and termination notice (client consented in engagement letter ¶7). 14 authorities opened at source and matched to propositions; two pinpoints corrected; 9 factual statements tied to record pages. Reviewed and approved by the supervising attorney.”

1. The assignment and the tool: date, who ran it, the task and the product and plan used.
2. The information entered: the categories of client information, the matter documents and the consent or approval that covered them.
3. The authority ledger: each case, statute or rule, the source you opened, the date, the pinpoint and the subsequent-history check.
4. The fact table: each factual statement in the work product and the document and page that supports it.
5. The sign-off: the reviewer’s name, the date, the changes made after review and the court-rules check for filings.

03 / PRACTICE NOTES

Calibrate the tool before you rely on it, and keep the test.

Opinion 512 describes how verification can scale. A lawyer who uses a tool to summarize numerous lengthy contracts need not necessarily re-read the whole set if the lawyer first tested the tool on a smaller subset, compared the tool’s summaries with a manual review and found them accurate. Treat that test as a document. Choose a closed matter or a sample set, run the task, review it yourself and note the date, the sample, what matched and what needed correction.

Repeat the calibration when the task changes, when you move to a new kind of document or when the tool is updated. Texas Opinion 705 and California’s guidance both stress that lawyers must keep a reasonable and current understanding of the technology they use, and a dated calibration file is the evidence of that understanding. Keep the file with the firm’s AI-use policy so every new matter starts from a tested workflow.

04 / PRACTICE NOTES

Mark AI-assisted materials so the next reader knows what to check.

Opinion 512 includes a training suggestion that all materials produced by generative AI tools be marked as such when stored in any client or firm file, so future users understand the work product’s potential fallibility. Adopt a consistent mark. A file name suffix, a header on the first page or a labeled folder works; the point is that a colleague who opens the document at 11 p.m. before a filing knows which text came from the tool and which authorities still need a second look.

Remove the mark only when the review record shows the sign-off. In Word, use the comment and tracked-changes tools to show the reviewer’s edits and questions; Word keeps those marks until the lawyer accepts them. When the final text is filed, store the filed version, the ledger and the sign-off together so the record reflects what was actually submitted.

05 / PRACTICE NOTES

The workflow in RuleX: sources open, the draft stays editable and the log stays with the matter.

RuleX places each step of the record where the work happens. The matter holds the documents, up to twenty of which RuleX can work with at once while preserving citations and context. Research answers present sources you open from the answer, so the authority ledger is built from sources you have read. The draft is written in Canvas beside the file and exports to Word for the reviewer’s edits. The case log and the task list hold the assignment entry, the review task, the sign-off and the date.

Start with one matter. Start the 7-day free trial, add a real matter and open the sources from the answer. Save the template for the five entries as a matter note, then reuse it on the next assignment.

1. Create the matter and add the client documents the research will use.
2. Record the assignment entry and the consent that covers the information entered.
3. Run the research and open every source the answer cites.
4. Build the ledger and the fact table while reading, with pinpoints and dates.
5. Draft in Canvas, export the Word version and revise it with tracked changes.
6. Complete the sign-off task and save the filed version with the record.

06 / PRACTICE NOTES

Give supervising lawyers a sign-off they can audit.

Rules 5.1 and 5.3 make supervision concrete: policies, training and reasonable efforts to ensure compliance. A sign-off line in the record lets a supervising lawyer confirm in two minutes that the ledger exists, that each authority carries a date and that a named person reviewed the final text. Assign the sign-off to someone other than the drafter on any filing, and require every signer on a multi-lawyer paper to read the final version, since the Wadsworth court sanctioned a supervising attorney and local counsel who signed.

Review a sample of records each quarter. The review checks that entries are complete, that calibration tests are current and that the firm’s policy still matches the tools in use. Update the policy when a state bar issues new guidance, as California did in 2026.