Legal research is changing faster than most people expected, especially amid the AI in the legal industry conversation.
A recent benchmarking study found that AI tools scored between 74% and 78% on legal research tasks, while practicing lawyers averaged 69% when answering the same questions.
On accuracy alone, AI reached 80%, compared to 71% for human participants. Lawyers still performed better on questions that required deeper nuance and judgment, but the gap in routine research was hard to ignore.
Those numbers don’t mean AI replaces legal thinking. However, they do show how artificial intelligence (AI) already handles large volumes of legal information quickly and consistently.
AI can fit into legal research in different ways, and no two workflows look the same. If AI research feels new, this guide gives you a clear and practical way to start using it without complicating your process.
AI-led legal research works best when it follows a clear structure. So, let's break down the process into practical steps:
Generally, legal AI gives better answers when it knows exactly what you’re asking. A loose or rushed question usually leads to generic results, even with strong natural language processing working behind the scenes.
For legal researchers handling complex legal research tasks, clarity upfront makes a real difference. AI legal research tools can scan massive volumes of material, but they still follow your lead.
So, a well-framed question helps surface relevant case law faster and keeps the results focused on what actually matters.
Here’s a quick example. Asking “What cases involve breach of contract?” pulls in a wide mix of decisions with mixed relevance.
In contrast, asking “What recent New York cases analyze termination clauses in commercial service agreements?” gives the tool clear boundaries. The output tends to include stronger comparisons, clearer reasoning, and citations you can actually use.
Pro tip: Treat the question as part of the research process. A little precision at the start saves time later and leads to results that feel far more reliable.
Not every AI tool fits every research task, and choosing the right one shapes the quality of your results.
The legal profession now has access to a wide range of legal AI tools, each built for a different purpose within the research process. Some tools focus on speed and general understanding, while others go deeper into legal analysis.
Here’s how the main categories usually break down:
The right choice depends on the task, the level of risk, and how the output will be used. Matching the tool to the job keeps AI helpful rather than distracting and makes research easier to validate later.
At the start of a research project, AI can help you get oriented without slowing things down.
When AI adoption is still new, this step often feels like the easiest entry point because it gives quick context without asking you to commit to a position.
Say you’re digging into non-compete enforceability. Generative artificial intelligence can give you a snapshot of how courts tend to approach the issue, which jurisdictions matter most, and where opinions start to split.
Used this way, AI systems act as a helpful tool that saves time early on. You get clarity faster and move into deeper research with a clearer plan.
Again, the quality of your prompts shapes the quality of your results. AI software responds to the signals you give it, so vague phrasing usually brings back vague answers.
Legal professionals get far better output when prompts reflect how they already think through legal issues.
Good prompts combine clear search terms with context. For example, that might mean naming the jurisdiction, the legal principles involved, and the outcome you care about. Generative AI works best when it understands the frame of the question and not just the topic.
Here’s an example of a weak prompt:
“Find cases on wrongful termination.”
Now compare that with something more focused:
“Find recent Illinois cases analyzing wrongful termination claims tied to employee whistleblowing.”
You can also guide AI toward relevant primary sources with small adjustments:
For example:
“How do federal courts apply the economic loss doctrine in software contract disputes, and which cases are cited most often?”
Clear prompts keep the research grounded and make the output easier to review, verify, and build on as the work moves forward.
After using AI to frame stronger prompts, the next step is slowing things down enough to verify what comes back.
Keep in mind that AI can point you in the right direction, but it cannot take responsibility for accuracy. Every case, statute, or quote still needs to be checked against original legal materials and read within its proper legal context.
For example, an AI tool might cite a case that appears to support your position, but a closer read shows the holding turns on procedural posture or a narrow factual detail.
Without reviewing the opinion itself, that nuance gets missed. The same risk applies to summaries pulled from other documents or secondary sources.
Court rules, jurisdictional differences, and citation standards also matter. AI does not always flag when a case has been limited, questioned, or quietly overtaken by a newer authority.
Remember: Human judgment remains the safeguard that keeps research accurate, defensible, and aligned with professional expectations.
After you’ve checked the key sources, AI can help you dig deeper without starting over.
This part of the process works well for legal work that needs a bit more nuance, especially when practicing attorneys want to pressure-test their initial findings. Thoughtful AI usage here helps refine the research rather than widen it.
Here are a few practical ways to expand and narrow your results:
For example, after reviewing cases on indemnification clauses, you might ask AI to find decisions where similar language failed. Follow-up like this often highlights risk areas worth addressing.
During this step, AI helps you explore the issue from multiple angles while keeping the research manageable and focused.
AI can also help once you’re ready to compare how courts handle similar legal matters.
Reviewing court opinions side by side makes it easier to spot patterns, recurring reasoning, and areas where judges disagree, especially across jurisdictions. That comparison adds structure to large volumes of legal information.
For example, you might ask AI to review recent decisions on limitation of liability clauses in software contracts and note how often courts enforce them as written. Seeing where courts align and where they don’t helps clarify risk and predict outcomes.
Still, human expertise guides this step. AI can organize and summarize trends, but legal judgment comes from reading the opinions and understanding why courts reached their conclusions.
Research only helps if you can actually use it. After reviewing cases and patterns, AI can help turn everything you’ve gathered into something practical and easy to share.
This step is less about finding new information and more about making sense of what you already have.
For example, after reviewing a set of cases on non-solicitation clauses, you might ask AI to summarize how courts tend to view scope and duration. That gives you a working draft you can refine before turning it into a short memo or internal note.
Legal teams often use these summaries in a few familiar ways:
Laws change, interpretations shift, and yesterday’s research can age faster than expected. AI helps keep an eye on those changes without turning monitoring into a separate project.
In many legal settings, this is where increased efficiency really shows up.
Some AI products use machine learning to track new cases, rule changes, or guidance tied to topics you care about.
For example, if you’ve researched non-compete enforcement in a specific state, AI can flag new court decisions that revisit the same issues. That keeps your understanding current without repeating the full research process.
AI also helps spot patterns over time. If courts start narrowing how a clause is applied, that shift becomes easier to see when updates are reviewed together rather than one at a time.
Finally, there’s a point where AI has done its part, and it’s time to take over. Legal research tools can certainly help you move faster, but they aren’t meant to carry the work all the way to the finish line. Many parts of legal practice still need close reading, judgment, and direct control.
When research starts touching confidential information, sensitive legal documents, or advice tied to the practice of law, AI works best in the background. Reviewing opinions, applying law to specific facts, and shaping final conclusions are moments where hands-on work matters most.
AI is one of several useful tools, not a replacement for professional judgment. Knowing when to step away helps keep the work solid, protects sensitive information, and supports better outcomes overall.
Even when AI is used thoughtfully, a few common missteps tend to show up. Nevertheless, spotting them early helps law firms get value from the tools without creating unnecessary risk, especially for smaller firms working with limited time and resources.
Here are some mistakes worth watching for:
Once you avoid the obvious mistakes, ethics and confidentiality start to matter even more.
AI can help with research, but responsibility for the work always stays with the lawyer. That becomes especially important when client data and professional judgment are involved.
One common ethical concern comes up around how information is entered into AI tools. Dropping real client facts or draft arguments into a general system can create risk if the tool isn’t built for legal use.
For example, sharing deal terms or litigation strategy in the wrong place can expose information that good law firms work hard to protect.
Authority is another area to watch closely. AI may summarize cases or suggest conclusions, but it doesn’t decide what counts as binding authority. Legal authority still comes from courts, statutes, and verified sources. Every citation and conclusion needs a second look.
A few simple habits help keep things on track:
Legal education builds judgment and accountability over time. AI can support that work, but ethical responsibility never shifts away from the person using it.
AI can speed up legal research, but speed only matters if the work stays accurate and connected.
What happens after you find the answer?
How easily does that research carry into drafting, redlining, and contract decisions?
Aline brings those pieces together through its AI Legal Copilot. Built for legal concepts and real contract data, the copilot supports in-depth research, highlights risk, suggests fallback language, and pulls insights directly from your agreements.
Research doesn’t live in isolation. It flows into AI-driven workflows, AlineSign, and contract management reporting that gives teams visibility without extra back-and-forth.
If research feels fragmented today, this approach changes the experience. One place to ask questions. One system to act on the answers.
Curious how AI-led legal research fits into your day-to-day work?
AI can support research, but it doesn’t replace careful reading or judgment. In the legal field, research still depends on understanding case holdings, context, and how courts apply the law. AI helps organize information faster, but final conclusions remain a human task.
AI can surface relevant cases, including Supreme Court cases, and highlight patterns across decisions. That said, every result needs review against primary sources. Secondary materials like law reviews can add helpful context, but they should not be treated as authority on their own.
Larger firms often use AI to speed up document review, track legal developments, and support drafting contracts. It can also help prepare for negotiations or anticipate arguments from opposing counsel, as long as the output is verified.
Yes, especially around client data and accuracy. Legal services still require confidentiality, supervision, and source validation. AI can assist with research and drafting, but responsibility for the work always stays with the lawyer.
Brent is an attorney, a full-stack JavaScript engineer and the CEO of Aline.
Subscribe to our newsletter to receive new posts straight to your inbox 👇
