# AI for law firms: a task-by-task map of what helps

By Josef Long. Published October 17, 2026. General information, not legal advice.

Most writing about AI for law firms asks whether to use it. A more useful question is which tasks it helps with, what it should never decide, and how to find out without taking a risk on a live matter.

## The map

| The task | Where AI helps, and what a lawyer still does |
|---|---|
| Meeting and call notes | Drafts a summary, decisions and next steps while the call is fresh. A lawyer checks it against the recording. |
| Follow-up emails and letters | Prepares a first draft in the firm's format. A lawyer edits it and decides whether it goes out. |
| Time entries | Proposes an entry with a narrative for work that would otherwise go unrecorded. The lawyer approves what posts. |
| Deposition digests | Organizes testimony by page and line, topic and issue. An attorney checks it against the certified transcript. |
| Searching the firm's own files | Answers a question across calls, documents and mail, with citations. A lawyer opens the sources behind anything that matters. |
| Document comparison | Shows what changed between versions, clause by clause. A lawyer decides which changes matter. |
| Deadlines | Does the date arithmetic and proposes a date. A lawyer confirms the governing rule before docketing. |
| Legal research | Speeds up finding and summarizing sources. A lawyer reads the authority and verifies every citation. |

## Two rules that hold for every row

1. The lawyer keeps the judgment. The ABA's Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) says lawyers may not hand tasks that call for their own judgment to an AI tool: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf
2. The amount of checking depends on the tool and the task. The same opinion notes that a lawyer who has tested a tool on a small sample, by comparing its output to work already reviewed by hand, may have a reasonable basis to verify less on similar tasks later. It does not mean skipping review.

## How a firm can start

1. Pick one task that is frequent, boring and low risk.
2. Write the rules for it before anyone uses a tool.
3. Test on past work and compare to what a lawyer produced.
4. Review everything at first, and loosen review only as evidence builds.
5. Add the next task, not the next ten.

## Questions

**What can AI do for a law firm?** It can help with the first draft of routine work: summarizing calls and meetings, drafting emails and letters, preparing time entries, digesting depositions, searching a firm's own files and flagging possible deadlines. A lawyer still checks the output and makes the decisions.

**Will AI replace lawyers?** The ABA's Formal Opinion 512 says lawyers may not hand judgment tasks to an AI tool. AI changes how long drafting and searching take, not who is responsible for the advice.

**How should a small law firm start with AI?** Pick one repetitive task, write down the rules, test the tool against work you have already done, and review every output at first.

## Where VaultScribe fits

VaultScribe is a private AI workspace for law firms, built for the first seven rows: notes, drafts, time entries, digests, cited search, comparison and proposed deadlines. For research, it connects to the research services a firm already subscribes to and does not provide licensed research content. Founding design partners sign a non-binding letter of intent, with terms agreed on a call: hello@vaultscribe.app.

Related: https://vaultscribe.app/legal-ai-agent.md and https://vaultscribe.app/private-legal-ai.md. Transcripts from any tool are machine transcripts and are not certified.