← All guidelines·Guideline 7 of 8
AI makes length cheap. The court’s time and the client’s money are not. A point is made once, and clearly; padded, generic text costs the client and costs counsel their standing with the bench.
Orange · Should A standard of good practice. Not following it is not, by itself, misconduct.
The rules
“advise their clients at the earliest possible opportunity on the likely success of such clients’ cases and not generate unnecessary work, nor involve their clients in unnecessary expense;”
LPC Code of Conduct, para 3.10
“refrain from doing anything which could or might bring the legal profession into disrepute;”
LPC Code of Conduct, para 3.15
“Counsel, upon accepting a brief, shall perform the necessary work to the best of their abilities”
LPC Code of Conduct, para 28.5
No rule says “be brief”. This guideline is a standard of good practice rather than a rule of conduct. It rests on the cost to the client, the court’s time, and counsel’s reputation with the bench.
What the problem looks like
- Length without argument: every point taken, none developed.
- Generic sentences that could appear in any set of heads.
- The same point made three times in different words.
- Confident statements of law with no authority.
- Lists and headings where an argument should be.
- Quotations that read too neatly. These are checked first (Guideline 1).
Use AI to cut, not to add
AI is good at finding the weak point, the repetition and the paragraph that does no work. It can be asked to do that. Counsel then decides what goes.
Green · Method The checks
- One point per paragraph. Each paragraph moves the argument forward, or it goes.
- Would it be said to the bench? Read it aloud.
- Cut the weakest point. Weak points dilute strong ones.
- Is it specific to this case? A sentence that would fit any case is filler.
Other jurisdictions
None of the comparator guidance on file deals directly with concision or with the quality of AI-generated prose. This guideline is a standard of good practice put forward here. The international comparison covers the rest.
Sources on file: LPC Code of Conduct (GG 42337, 29 March 2019), paras 3.10, 3.15 and 28.5.
Status. A proposed guideline, put forward by Greg Fourie SC for discussion. It has not been adopted by the Legal Practice Council, the General Council of the Bar or any society of advocates. Read the Code itself before relying on it.