Large-language models are the paralegals you can’t bill for - eager, tireless, occasionally wrong. Used well, they halve drafting time; used badly, they broadcast recycled mush and inflate your digital footprint. Here’s how to keep the brief sharp, authentic and energy-lean.
1. Begin with your own precedent, not the bot’s
Feed GPT the skeleton of your last thought-leadership article - heading structure, client anecdotes, one fresh case citation - then ask for refinements. Why? You anchor the model in your voice and cut the random-fact fishing expedition (i.e., fewer token-hungry calls).
2. One prompt, one purpose
Need a 150-word intro? Ask for that - and only that. Rambling “make it punchy, SEO-friendly, add five jokes” instructions force the engine to spin longer. Break tasks into clean, recyclable chunks.
3. Use “why” checkpoints
After each section, prompt: “Explain in 50 words why this advice matters to a CFO.” It forces clarity, exposes hallucinations, and saves you deleting pages later.
4. Keep research human-led
GPT is a summariser, not a source of record. Pull statutes, judgments, and journal articles yourself, then let the model condense them. You stay authoritative, the model stays honest.
5. Cache & reuse your best prompts
Store high-performing prompts in a secure library. Re-running proven templates is cheaper (financially and environmentally) than reinventing them every Monday.
6. Watch the water
Choose providers that disclose regional water-use efficiency (WUE) and carbon intensity. If they won’t show you, assume it’s high.
Lawyers who merge human insight with responsible AI tooling:
- publish faster, without dulling the firm’s distinct tone;
- demonstrate ESG awareness to procurement teams that increasingly score for it;
- spend less time wrestling with first drafts and more time advising clients.
Remember: the court cares about precedent, not how many prompt tokens you burned to describe it. Use GPT to amplify your expertise, not to substitute for it - and certainly not to leave a bigger water stain than the judgment you’re quoting.
