Before AI-Assisted Work Reaches Court, Can Your Firm Reconstruct the Review Trail?
- Pouya Shafabakhsh
- Aug 17
- 4 min read
A reconstructable AI review trail should identify the tool used, the information path, the resulting output, the independent verification performed, the person who approved the work and the final version submitted. If those elements cannot be established from available records—especially when a court milestone is approaching—a bounded Shadow AI Audit may help counsel identify the gap and decide whether further examination is proportionate.
When AI-assisted work may support a court submission, I do not begin with only one question: “Was AI used?”
I ask whether the firm can reconstruct what happened well enough for responsible counsel to evaluate the work. That means identifying the tool, the information path, the output, the independent review, the approver and the final version that entered the matter.
If that trail cannot be reconstructed from available records, the immediate need is not a broad technology transformation. It is a disciplined understanding of what can—and cannot—be established before the work is relied upon.
What a reconstructable AI review trail should show
For a defined matter, I would expect the available record to address six questions:
Which tool was used? Identify the application, account type and relevant version where that information is available.
What entered the workflow? Establish the categories of information used and where processing occurred without unnecessarily reproducing sensitive content.
What did the tool produce? Preserve or identify the output that materially influenced research, drafting, analysis or review.
What was independently verified? Confirm authorities, quotations, propositions, material facts and record references against appropriate underlying sources.
Who exercised professional judgment? Identify the lawyer or authorized reviewer who resolved exceptions and approved reliance.
Which version became final? Connect the verified work to the version signed, served or submitted.
A polished document is not itself a review trail. Neither is a working hyperlink, correct citation format or a second AI-generated answer.
Why this matters in New York and Ontario
New York’s Part 161 applies as statewide policy to civil and criminal courts. It does not prohibit AI-assisted drafting or impose a general disclosure requirement solely because AI was used. It also permits individual courts to adopt the Appendix A model rule, which requires careful review and independent assurance that AI-assisted papers contain no fabricated or fictitious material.
That sits beside existing signing duties. Under 22 NYCRR Part 130, signing a paper certifies that the signer’s knowledge, information and belief were formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances and that the paper is not frivolous.
In Ontario, the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct connect technological competence with understanding the benefits and risks of relevant technology and protecting confidential client information.
These sources are not identical, and they do not make an audit mandatory. They point to the same operational concern: professional responsibility does not move from the lawyer to the tool.
Where the trail commonly breaks
The gap is often less dramatic than a fabricated case. A citation may exist but not support the proposition. A quotation may omit a limitation. A junior lawyer, contractor or staff member may complete a check without recording the source. A late revision may alter verified language. The uploaded filing may not match the reviewed version.
The issue is visibility. Thomson Reuters reported in its 2026 legal-sector research that 34% of surveyed law-firm professionals used AI tools their firms had not authorized. That is an industry finding—not a conclusion about any particular firm—but it illustrates why policy alone may not reveal what occurred in a live workflow.
When a bounded Shadow AI Audit may be proportionate
A focused review may be worth considering when AI use is suspected but undocumented; a material authority or quotation cannot be reproduced; the reviewer and approval path are unclear; several draft versions conflict; or an upcoming filing leaves limited time to establish the record.
At Radsam Academy of AI Sovereign Governance, I use a defined-scope Shadow AI Audit methodology to examine relevant AI use, outputs, controls and supporting records. Where appropriate and agreed in advance, selected materials may be examined in an air-gapped environment isolated from external networks and public-cloud AI services.
Air-gapping is a technical control. It does not, by itself, guarantee privilege, confidentiality, security, compliance or admissibility. The audit also does not provide legal advice or determine a litigation outcome. Its purpose is narrower: clarify the available record so counsel can decide what action, if any, is proportionate.
Begin with high-level context—not matter evidence
If your Ontario or New York firm has an upcoming IP, patent, corporate/M&A or class-action matter involving AI-assisted work, the Pre-Qualification Assessment is the starting point.
Use the form only for the requested contact details and high-level organizational context. Do not submit client identities, matter facts, privileged communications, confidential evidence, litigation strategy, credentials or other sensitive material. Submission helps assess fit, conflicts, capacity and timing; it does not create an engagement or guarantee acceptance.
Begin the Pre-Qualification Assessment:
Author: Pouya Shafabakhsh Co-Founder, CAIO & Principal Forensic AI Auditor, Radsam Academy of AI Sovereign Governance. The Architect of North America's: Judicial Forensic AI Audit Standards, AI Governance, Risks & Compliance Standards, Air-Gapped Sovereign Sanctuary AI Audit System.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does New York Part 161 prohibit lawyers from using AI?
No. Part 161 states that AI use in preparing court papers should not be prohibited when existing duties are satisfied. It also says AI use alone should not trigger a general disclosure requirement. Counsel must still check the assigned court’s rules and orders.
What is the difference between proofreading and independent verification?
Proofreading checks presentation. Independent verification tests whether authorities exist, quotations are accurate, propositions are supported, material facts match the record and the final version reflects resolved exceptions.
Is an Air-Gapped Shadow AI Audit mandatory?
No. Whether any audit is proportionate depends on the matter, available records, timing, identified gap and counsel’s judgment.
Is the Assessment Form an evidence-intake channel?
No. It is a public organizational pre-qualification form. Provide only requested contact details and high-level context; do not submit privileged, confidential or matter-sensitive information.
Does submitting the Assessment Form create an engagement?
No. Submission supports a human review of potential fit, conflicts, capacity and timing. Any engagement requires separate acceptance and written scope.
Comments