FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
DOES YOUR LEGAL BRIEF NEED A CONSULT?
If I’m an attorney, why isn’t AI enough to help me write a strong brief?
Strong briefs turn on wise human judgments about how to build a brief — before any writing.
In appeals and dispositive motions, courts are able to rule in your favor only if your brief provides a path that fits the procedural and substantive constraints the court faces.
Artificial intelligence might be able to write well, superficially — but it can’t think like this yet.
Without experienced human judgment, even superficially “well-written” AI legal briefs will fail — because AI still lacks the judgment on how to thread the needle of the court’s decision-making constraints.
Consultations with a human brief writing specialist improves your brief on the tough questions and close judgment calls — in contrast, AI will likely harm your brief and your strategy.
Talking with a human expert about your brief gives you the human wisdom, experience, and sound judgment that AI still can’t come close to providing.
What’s the difference between AI writing and experienced human brief writing?
AI legal writing may look polished and superficially persuasive — but appeals and dispositive motions are not about simple persuasion — rather, they’re about:
Giving the court a pathway so the court can decide in your favor — even with all the constraints the court faces (procedural rules, standards of review, and applicable doctrines, not just the facts and law);
Giving the court alternative pathways by which the court can still decide in your favor — even if the court doesn’t like (or can’t use) your first path.
Human experts in brief writing are still far ahead of AI when it comes to the things your brief needs behind the scenes — for the trustworthy sounding board when you have to make the tough judgment calls.
You know your case best; an expert brief writer knows how build a brief best; two humans talking together make a better brief than AI — because AI still can’t emulate this level of human judgment and experience.
What are some of the behind-the-scenes brief decisions that are helped by a consult?
Identifying the core two to three issues that the case turns on, and ensuring they allow a pathway to a ruling the court can make within its constraints;
Presenting the facts so the court can rely on them as the foundation necessary for the legal determinations;
Removing issues and arguments that interfere with the brief’s objectives;
Removing rhetoric and logical fallacies that weaken the brief;
Judiciously editing too-long briefs so that briefs are within page limits without harming arguments;
Developing multiple even-if positions so that the court has a path to rule in your favor on an issue even your primary arguments are not adopted.
What are common problems when trial lawyers handle their own briefs? — And why use a human consult instead of AI?
One problem is that both AI and non-specialists raised too many issues on appeal / in their dispositive briefs.
Another problem is that both AI and non-specialists tend to use general persuasion methods instead of persuading within the technical constraints the court faces.
Another problem is failure to engage in rigorous law-to-fact analysis, and slipping into conclusory assertions.
Yet another problem is failure to engage in purely logical analysis, and slipping into argumentative rhetoric and logical fallacies that the court cannot and will not adopt.
AI still lacks human judgment and expertise in the unique area of high-end brief writing for a specialized audience — courts that face significant constraints — human consults add real value.
What kinds of brief-writing decisions should happen before drafting begins, and how does a consult help, if I’m a lawyer who knows my case best?
One decision is how to make the most of the evidentiary record, because in most cases it’s the facts that control the outcome, not the law.
Another decision is how to build and keep credibility by focusing on the core issues — instead of briefing every possible issue.
Another decision is how to identify — and correctly apply — the applicable standard of review for each issue.
Other decisions that should happen before drafting begins includes confirming jurisdiction and satisfaction of doctrines including standing, ripeness, and other threshold issues that arise before the merits.
Why can’t AI handle these types of decisions when I’m an attorney writing my own brief?
At present, AI is still just pattern-generation and pattern-recognition — AI generates text, but does not have the ability to make nuanced judgments that matter in briefs.
And at present, AI still does not know what to omit, or how to prioritize — it cannot discern the fine points that determine which issues and arguments are most likely to actually succeed with human judges.
And certainly, at present, AI will not hesitate to hallucinate as to facts and law — severely harming your credibility with the court.
And at present, AI does not have the ability to stand in the shoes of the court on the key issue of future precedent — what will the consequences be in future decisions if the court decides in your favor?