How to Cite AI in Legal Writing

In today’s legal landscape, generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as large language models (LLMs) are increasingly part of how law firms and in-house legal departments operate. At Wansom, we build a secure, AI-powered collaborative workspace designed for legal teams who want to automate document drafting, review and legal research—without compromising professional standards, confidentiality, or workflow integrity.
As these tools rise in importance, one question becomes critical for legal professionals: when and how should you cite or disclose AI in legal writing? It’s not just a question of style—it’s a question of professional ethics, defensibility, risk management and client trust. This article explores what the current guidance says, how legal teams should approach AI citation and disclosure, and how a platform like Wansom supports controlled, auditable AI usage in legal workflows.

What do current citation conventions say about using AI in legal writing?

The short answer: the rules are still evolving—and legal teams must proceed with both caution and intention. But there is meaningful emerging guidance. For example:

• Universities such as Dalhousie University advise that when you use AI tools to generate content you must verify it and be transparent about its use. Dalhousie University Library Guides

• Academic style‐guides such as those from Purdue University and others outline how to cite generative AI tools, e.g., the author is the tool’s developer, the version must be noted, the context described. Purdue University Libraries Guides

• Legal‐specific guidance from the Gallagher Law Library (University of Washington) explains that for the widely-used legal citation guide The Bluebook, formal rules for AI citations are not yet established—but provides drafting examples. UW Law Library

• Library systems emphasise that AI tools should not be treated as human authors, that the prompt or context of use should be disclosed, and that you should cite the tool when you quote or paraphrase its output. UCSD Library Guides+1

For legal professionals the takeaway is clear: you should treat AI‐generated text or content as something requiring transparency (citation or acknowledgment), but you cannot yet rely on a universally accepted format to cite AI as you would a case, statute or article. The safest approach: disclose the tool used, the version, the prompt context, and then always verify any cited legal authority.
Related Blog: Secure AI Workspaces for Legal Teams

Why proper citation and disclosure of AI usage matters for legal teams

The significance of citing AI in legal writing goes well beyond formatting—this is about professional responsibility, risk management and maintaining client trust. Here are the major reasons legal teams must take this seriously:

• Accuracy and reliability: Generative AI may produce plausible text—but not necessarily true text. For instance, researchers caution that AI “can create fake citations” or invent legal authorities that do not exist. University of Tulsa Libraries+1 Lawyers relying blindly on AI outputs have been sanctioned for including fictitious case law. Reuters

• Professional ethics and competence: Legal professionals are subject to rules of competence and confidentiality. For example, the American Bar Association’s formal guidance warns that using AI without oversight may breach ethical duties. Reuters Proper citation/disclosure helps show that the lawyer retained oversight and verified the output.

• Transparency and accountability: When a legal drafting process uses AI, the reader—or the court—should be able to identify how and to what extent AI was used. This matters for audit trails and for establishing defensibility.

• Client trust and confidentiality: AI usage may implicate data privacy or client-confidential information. Citing disclosure helps set expectations and clarify that the work involved AI. If content is AI-generated or AI-assisted, recognizing that is part of professional transparency.

• Regulatory and litigation risk: Using AI and failing to disclose or verify its output can lead to reputational and legal risk. Courts are increasingly aware of AI-generated “hallucinations” in filings. Reuters

For law-firm AI adoption, citing or acknowledging AI usage isn’t just a nice-to-have—it is a safeguard. At Wansom, we emphasise a workspace built not only for automation, but for audit, oversight and compliance—so legal teams adopt AI with confidence.

Related Blog: Managing Risk in Legal Tech Adoption

How should lawyers actually incorporate AI citations and disclosures into legal writing?

In practice, legal teams need clear internal protocols—and drafting guidelines—so that AI usage is consistently handled. Below is a practical roadmap:

1. Determine the level of AI involvement
First ask: Did you rely on AI to generate text, suggest drafting language, summarise documents, or purely for editing/spell-check? Many citation guidelines distinguish between “mere editing assistance” (which may not require citation) and “substantive AI‐generated text or output” (which does). USF Libraries If AI only helped with grammar or formatting, you may only need a disclosure statement. If AI produced original text, you should cite accordingly.

2. Select the appropriate citation style & format
Although there is no single legal citation manual for AI yet, the following practices are emerging:

• For tools like ChatGPT: treat the developer (e.g., OpenAI) as the author, include the version, date accessed, tool type. TLED

• Include in-text citations or footnotes that indicate the use of AI and specify what prompt or output was used (if relevant). UW Law Library+1

• If you quote or paraphrase AI-generated output, treat it like any quoted material: include quotation marks (if direct) or paraphrase, footnote the source, and verify accuracy.
  3. Draft disclosure statements in the document
  Many legal publishers or firms now require an “AI usage statement” or acknowledgement in the document’s front matter or footnote. Example: “This document was prepared with drafting assistance from ChatGPT (Mar. 14 version, OpenAI) for generative text suggestions; final editing and review remain the responsibility of [Lawyer/Team].”
  4. Verify and document AI output accuracy
  Even with citation, you must verify all authority, case law, statutes or statements that came via AI. If AI suggested a case or quote, verify it exists and is accurate. Many guidelines stress this point explicitly. Brown University Library Guides 5. Maintain internal audit logs and version control
  Within your platform (such as Wansom’s workspace), you should retain records of prompts given, versions of AI model used, human reviewer sign-off, revisions made. This ensures defensibility and transparency.
  6. Create firm-wide guidelines and training
  Adopt internal policy: define when AI may be used, when citation/disclosure is required, train lawyers and staff, update as norms evolve. This aligns with broader governance requirements and supports consistent practice.
  Related Blog: Why Human Oversight Still Matters in Legal AI

What special considerations apply for legal writing when citing AI compared to academic writing?

Legal writing presents unique demands—precision, authority, precedent, accountability—that make AI-citation considerations distinct compared to academic or editorial writing. Some of those differences:

• Legal authority and precedent dependency: Legal writing hinges on case law, statutes and precise authority. AI may suggest authorities—so the lawyer must verify them. Failure to do so is not just an error, but may result in sanctions. Reuters

• Litigation risk and professional responsibility: Lawyers have a duty of candour to courts, clients and opposing parties; representing AI-generated content as fully human-produced or failing to verify may breach ethical duties.

• Confidentiality & privilege: Legal matters often involve privileged material; if AI tools were used, you must ensure client confidentiality remains intact and disclosure of AI use does not compromise privilege.

• Firm branding and client trust: Legal firms are judged on the reliability of their documents. If AI was used, citing/disclosing that fact supports transparency and helps build trust rather than obscuring the process.

• Auditability and evidentiary trail: In legal practice, documents may be subject to discovery, regulatory scrutiny or audit. Having an auditable trail of how AI was used—including citation/disclosure—supports defensibility.
  For law firms adopting AI in drafting workflows, the requirement is not just to cite—but to integrate citation and review as part of the workflow. Platforms like Wansom support this by embedding version logs, reviewer sign-offs and traceability of AI suggestions.

Related Blog: AI for Legal Research: Use Cases & Tools

How will AI citation practices evolve, and what should legal teams prepare for?

The landscape of AI citation in legal writing is still dynamic—and legal teams that prepare proactively will gain an advantage. Consider these forward-looking trends:

• Standardisation of citation rules: Style guides (e.g., The Bluebook, ALWD) are likely to incorporate explicit rules for AI citations in upcoming editions. Until then, firms should monitor updates and align accordingly. UW Law Library

• Governance, regulation and disclosure mandates: As courts and regulatory bodies become more aware of AI risks (e.g., fake citations, hallucinations), we may see formal mandatory disclosure of AI usage in filings. Reuters

• AI metadata and provenance features: Legal-tech platforms will increasingly embed metadata (e.g., model version, prompt used, human reviewer) to support auditing and defensibility. Teams should adopt tools that capture this natively.

• Client expectations and competitive differentiation: Clients may ask how a legal team used AI in a deliverable—so transparency around citation and workflow becomes a feature, not a liability.

• Training, policy and continuous review: As AI tools evolve, so will risk profiles (bias, hallucination, data leakage). Legal teams will need to update policies, training and citation/disclosure protocols.
  For firms using Wansom, the platform is designed to support this evolution: secure audit logs, clear versioning, human-in-loop workflows and citation/disclosure tracking, allowing legal teams to stay ahead of changing norms.

Conclusion

Citing AI in legal writing is not simply a matter of formatting—it is about accountability, transparency and professional integrity. For legal teams embracing AI-assisted drafting and research, it requires clear protocols, consistent disclosure, rigorous verification and thoughtfully designed workflows.
At Wansom, we believe the future of legal practice is hybrid: AI-augmented, workflow-integrated, secure and human-centred. Our workspace is built for legal teams who want automation and assurance—so you can draft, review and collaborate with confidence.

If your firm is ready to adopt AI in drafting and research, starting with how you cite and disclose that AI use is a strategic step. Because the deliverable isn’t just faster—it’s defensible. And in legal practice, defensibility matters.