Lawyers were early and cautious adopters for one reason: the upside (faster drafting and document review) sits right next to a real risk (a model that invents a case citation). Both are true. The lawyers getting value treat AI as a fast first-drafter and a summarizer, and they verify everything that touches a court or a client.
The 2023 Mata v. Avianca sanctions — where a lawyer filed a brief citing six cases ChatGPT made up — is the cautionary tale every legal use of AI now references. The lesson isn't "don't use it." It's "never cite anything you haven't pulled and read yourself."
Every prompt below works in a free Chatbot App account. No credit card to start.
Try these prompts freeDrop in a contract, deposition, or opinion and ask for a structured summary with the parts you actually need: obligations, dates, risks, anything unusual.
Summarize this commercial lease for a tenant. Give me: (1) term and renewal, (2) rent and escalation, (3) who pays for what, (4) termination and penalties, (5) anything unusual or unfavorable to the tenant. Quote the exact clause number for each point. [paste lease]
A demand letter, a clause, a client update. The model gives you a structured start in your voice; you do the legal judgment on top.
Draft a demand letter for unpaid invoices totaling $14,200, 90 days overdue, under a signed services agreement. Professional but firm, gives 14 days to cure before we pursue remedies. Leave bracketed placeholders for anything you are unsure about rather than guessing.
Paste a clause and ask for a plain explanation a non-lawyer client will understand, including what it means for them in practice.
Explain this indemnification clause to a small-business client with no legal background. What does it actually obligate them to do, what is the worst case, and what one change would I typically negotiate? [paste clause]
Ask the model to argue the other side. It surfaces weak points before opposing counsel does — no citations needed for this, just reasoning.
I am arguing that this non-compete is unenforceable because of its 3-year duration and nationwide scope. Steelman the opposing argument — give me the strongest case the employer would make to enforce it, so I can prepare rebuttals.
This is the one vertical where the caveat is the headline: a general chat model does not do legal research reliably. It will produce confident, fake citations. Use it for drafting, summarizing, and reasoning — then verify every fact, case, and statute in a real legal database before it leaves your desk. Don't paste privileged client material into a consumer tool.
Not safely on its own. General chat models hallucinate case names and citations that look real. Use them to organize your thinking or draft text, but pull and read every authority yourself in Westlaw, Lexis, or a court database. Purpose-built legal AI with grounded citations is a separate category.
Most bar guidance lands in the same place: yes, with competence and confidentiality. You stay responsible for the work product, you verify outputs, and you don't feed privileged information into tools that might use it. Some jurisdictions also expect disclosure in certain filings — check your local rules.
In Mata v. Avianca (2023), lawyers submitted a brief with six fabricated case citations generated by ChatGPT and were sanctioned. It became the standard reference for why you verify every citation before filing.
Unlimited AI access for $19.99/month, or start free with 100 messages a day.