A precedent says the petitioner is "he". The new matter concerns a woman, but the pronoun survives in the final draft because a junior changed the names and facts without reading every line. Ferzana uses this small error to describe a larger professional risk: lawyers can move quickly through documents while slowly losing ownership of the work.
Precedents are indispensable. They preserve tested language, save time and help a young lawyer see how an unfamiliar document is built. Trouble begins when the old draft becomes a substitute for thought. A clause may be grammatically correct and still be wrong for the new client, transaction or remedy. Even a pronoun can tell a client whether the lawyer paid attention.
Ferzana recalls a client who treated finding a spelling or grammar mistake in her drafts as a small victory because errors were so rare. That standard may sound fussy, but legal work is one of the few products where a misplaced word can alter responsibility, scope or credibility. Pride in drafting is not decoration. It is part of risk control.
AI makes the same issue larger and faster. Ferzana sees value in research tools, quick summaries and first drafts. She also warns that a system may produce a confident answer with a case name and citation that do not exist. The output looks finished, which is precisely why an inattentive user may trust it.
The sensible response is verification anchored in fundamentals. Before searching for a supporting judgment, a lawyer should understand the principle, statutory framework and issue. After receiving an AI-assisted answer, the lawyer should locate the primary authority, read the relevant passage, check whether it remains good law and test whether the facts truly match. A citation is the start of review, not proof of accuracy.
Drafting needs a similar routine. Read the source document first. Identify which commercial or procedural problem each clause addresses. Remove terms that belong only to the earlier matter. Check names, dates, defined terms, pronouns, cross-references, schedules and signature blocks. Then read the document aloud or on paper. The cold page often exposes repetitions and gaps that remain invisible on a bright screen at 11 p.m.
Ferzana also identifies work machines struggle to perform. In family disputes, wills and probate matters, a lawyer may need to hear anger, grief or fear before explaining that the client's preferred course could deepen the damage. The legal answer remains important, but the conversation requires judgment about timing, language and relationships. Settlement can be more satisfying than a technically successful order when both sides preserve something valuable.
Young lawyers do bring strengths. Ferzana notes their comfort with technology and their willingness to speak about work-life boundaries. Her complaint is narrower: speed and salary should not crowd out learning or care. Moving jobs every few months may raise pay, but it can also interrupt the slow accumulation of judgment if every role ends before responsibility arrives.
A personal quality check need not be elaborate. Before sending, verify the parties, dates, amounts, definitions, annexures and internal references. Search for terms carried over from the precedent. Open every cited judgment and read beyond the extracted sentence. Ask whether the document answers the client's actual instruction. Five quiet minutes at the end often protect hours of explanation later, and they train the eye to notice errors before a partner or judge does.
I have little patience for the phrase "minor typo" in a document sent to a client. The error may be minor; the signal is not. Tools can accelerate research and drafting, yet responsibility remains attached to the lawyer whose name appears on the work. Read the last line again.