6-lesson course · about 2 hours
Stop letting the newest memo override the signed contract
For Attorneys, paralegals and in-house legal teams
Everything for Legal teamsLearn to instruct AI to put conflicting sources side by side, ranked by evidentiary weight rather than date, and to check each conflict against the originals before anyone relies on it.
What you’ll be able to do
By the end, you can…
How it works
A tutor that meets you where you are
- Lessons that meet you at your levelSix lessons across two modules. Later lessons are written for your level as you reach them, so a paralegal new to prompting and an attorney who already uses AI daily each get material that fits.
- An AI tutor you can ask anythingAsk questions typed or out loud while you work through a lesson, for example how to word a weight standard for a contract dispute or what a check status column should record.
- Quizzes and flashcards for each lessonShort quizzes and flashcards tied to each lesson help you practice spotting a silently resolved conflict and remembering the steps of the review routine.
- Progress tracking and a certificateSee which lessons you have finished and what is next. Complete the course to receive a certificate of completion.
Curriculum
The curriculum
The course runs in two modules: first you get the AI to show conflicts instead of resolving them, then you check and maintain that output before anyone relies on it. Each lesson builds a piece of a routine you can use on your next matter.
Module 1Getting AI to Show Conflicts Instead of Resolving Them3 lessons
1Why the AI Treats the Latest Memo as the Truth
- Spot AI output that has silently resolved a conflict in favor of the newest document
- Explain why a later memo describing a contract or testimony does not replace the contract or testimony itself
- Distinguish a newer document that may actually change the record from one that only comments on it
2Setting Out How Evidentiary Weight Is Judged in Your Matter
- List the factors that make one source more reliable or better supported than another in a given matter
- Write a short weight standard for a matter that an AI tool can apply consistently
- Rank a set of sample sources by reliability and support rather than by date
3Writing Instructions That Put Conflicting Sources Side by Side
- Write an AI instruction that forbids resolving conflicts by recency
- Specify a side-by-side table format with source references, dates and weight labels for every claim
- Revise a weak prompt that invites the AI to pick the newest version
Module 2Checking and Maintaining the Output Before Anyone Relies on It3 lessons
4Checking Each Conflict Against the Original Documents
- Verify each AI-identified conflict against the original document at the cited reference
- Spot misquotes, wrong dates, mislabeled documents and missing conflicts in AI output
- Record a check status for each row so a reviewer can see what has been confirmed
5Keeping Open Questions, Jurisdiction and Audience Fit Visible
- Write instructions that keep an open-questions section in every conflict summary
- Flag jurisdiction and audience assumptions the attorney needs to confirm
- Rewrite AI wording that presents an allegation or unresolved point as an established fact
6Routing a Late Document Through the Chronology, Notes and Draft
- Write an instruction that compares a late document against the existing conflict table without restarting the task
- List every work product a new document affects and confirm each one is updated
- Spot a late document that is being allowed to override a better-supported source simply because it is new
Who it’s for
Made for you if…
Made for: Attorneys, paralegals and in-house legal teams
Paralegals building chronologies and summaries with AI
You need the AI's output to show where a later memo disagrees with a signed agreement or deposition testimony, with references you can check, rather than a clean narrative that hides the disagreement.
Attorneys reviewing AI-assisted work product
You want conflicts, open questions and jurisdiction assumptions laid out for your decision, not settled by a tool that defaults to the most recent document.
In-house legal staff working through contract files
Internal emails and memos often describe an agreement differently from how it reads. You need a consistent way to keep the signed document from being overwritten by commentary about it.
Questions
Good to know
How long does the course take?
It is designed to take about two hours, across six self-paced lessons.
What do I need to know before starting?
Experience reviewing a matter file, including contracts, correspondence and testimony; basic use of a chat-based AI tool; and familiarity with how your matter or practice area treats signed agreements, sworn statements and internal memos.
I am new to prompting AI. Is this too advanced?
No. The course starts at a beginner level for AI instruction and review and takes you to an intermediate level. You are expected to know legal documents, not prompting.
Will the AI decide which evidence wins?
No. The course teaches you to have AI present conflicts with their weight and keep open questions visible. Deciding which evidence wins remains the attorney's call.
Does this cover privilege or discovery responses?
No. Privilege determinations and discovery responses stay with the attorney and are outside this course.
Does it cover verifying case law and citations?
No. Verifying legal authority and citations is covered in a separate research course. This course checks the AI's references to documents in your matter file.
Does it cover keeping client information out of cloud AI tools?
No. Keeping privileged or identifying client information out of cloud workspaces is not covered here. Follow your organization's rules on which tools are approved.