Can I put this client file into an AI tool at all?
Answered in Lesson 1: Know your tool before you use it
The Verification Record →Legal AI certification · Module 1: The Verification Record
Verified means shown, not claimed.
For any AI-assisted work product, a Verified Lawyer can show which tool produced it, what it was asked, what it was given, who checked it, and how. We teach the record that proves it, and certify the lawyers and firms who keep it.
Built on the rules you file under, Missouri and Kansas first
Earned on a file, not a multiple-choice test alone
Publicly verifiable and renewed every year
Founding cohort
Reserve your founding spot →
The Verification Record
Module 1 of The Verified Lawyer certification
1
Six lessons, Missouri and Kansas focusedTool, prompts, testing, records, discovery and corrections
2
Six firm templates, ready the same weekIncluding the AI Use Record and a one-page firm AI policy
3
Practical assessment and credentialCertified Legal AI Practitioner, with a public verification page
No payment today · founding pricing shared with the cohort first
Public verification
12-month renewal
Team seats for firms
6Lessons
6Firm templates
1Practical assessment
12Month renewal
Why now
Courts no longer ask whether you used AI. They ask whether you can stand behind what you filed.
Every jurisdiction we track points the same way. Lawyers may use AI, and the lawyer alone owns the accuracy of the result. What differs is what you must disclose, and what an opponent can later demand.
Missouri
Four circuits, the 7th, 17th, 20th and 46th, require you to disclose AI use, name the tool, and certify that you verified the output.
Kansas
The District of Kansas's Standing Order 26-01 lets the court require disclosure or a sworn certification of personal verification, with sanctions up to dismissal.
California
SB 574, effective January 1, 2027, bars filing any citation the responsible attorney hasn't personally verified, and makes the firm jointly responsible.
Enforcement
In 2026 the Nebraska Supreme Court suspended a lawyer, and the Sixth Circuit fined two attorneys $15,000 each. The aggravator in both: a lack of candor about AI use.
More than 1,200 U.S. decisions involving AI-fabricated content had been recorded by late July 2026. Status as of October 18, 2026; we re-verify monthly.
The real problem
Your AI problem isn't the model.
Every sanctions order for a fake citation tells the same story. A lawyer trusted an output, skipped a check, and signed. The usual lesson is "be more careful." That lesson is incomplete.
What holds up is a system: a defined way of recording how AI was used, checking what it produced, and proving both later. The firms that get this right won't be the ones with the best model. They'll be the ones with the best workflow around it.
Read the full essay on Substack →Careful is a habit, and habits fail at 11 p.m. before a filing. A system holds.
The method
Engineers solved this first. We translated it for law firms.
Software teams learned that AI stalls when the system around it is unstructured. Their fix was ordinary discipline. Swap "run" for "draft" and "pipeline" for "matter," and it describes competent AI use in a law firm.
01
Declare
Know the tool, its contract terms and your client-consent basis before any client use.
02
Version
Keep a supervised prompt library, and treat a changed prompt like a changed form.
03
Test
Run every tool against questions you already know the answers to, and re-run when the model changes.
04
Trace
Tie each citation and fact to a source page and a named verifier.
Signed and defensible.Learn the method →
Adapted from public engineering practice. No affiliation with or endorsement by any firm cited.
The questions this answers
Six questions. Each answered by a named lesson.
Who approved the prompt that wrote this demand letter?
Answered in Lesson 2: Version your prompts like your forms
The Verification Record →Does this tool actually get Missouri and Kansas law right?
Answered in Lesson 3: Test before you trust
The Verification Record →What do I document without drowning a small firm?
Answered in Lesson 4: Keep a proportionate record
The Verification Record →Opposing counsel asked for "all AI prompts." What do I produce?
Answered in Lesson 5: What the record exposes
The Verification Record →A filing went out with an AI error. Now what?
Answered in Lesson 6: When it goes wrong
The Verification Record →The credential path
Start with the record. Build to the firm seal.
Every credential renews every 12 months, because the rules do.
Certified Legal AI Practitioner
For attorneys, paralegals, intake and case staff. Earned through The Verification Record.
Reserve a spot →Certified Legal AI Practice Leader
For managing partners and the person who runs AI at the firm. Adds supervising AI agents.
AI-Verified Firm
For the firm itself, on evidence of policy, records and supervision. Listed on a public registry.
Module 1 · The Verification Record
Six lessons. Each ends with something your firm keeps.
1Know your tool before you use it
Contract terms in writing before client data goes in: no training on inputs, no disclosure, deletion on request. Firm accounts only, and a client-consent basis for confidential inputs.
You keep: a Tool Declaration Card2Version your prompts like your forms
A changed prompt changes the work product. Each library entry gets an owner, a version, a date, known limits and a supervising lawyer's sign-off.
You keep: a firm prompt library entry3Test before you trust
Score every answer on four checks: the authority exists, the citation is accurate, it supports the point, and it's still good law. Re-run when the vendor changes the model.
You keep: a ten-question known-answer set4Keep a proportionate record
A full record for filings and anything sent to an opponent or insurer; a one-line record for internal drafting. Record facts, not commentary, and set a retention policy.
You keep: the AI Use Record, two tiers5What the record exposes
Which records courts have protected, which they've ordered produced, and where they're split. Keep strategy, inputs and expert use organized separately.
You keep: a protected, producible or contested map6When it goes wrong
Stop relying on it, find every filing that used it, correct the record with the tribunal, inform the client, notify the carrier, and log it so it never repeats.
You keep: a seven-step correction protocolWhat we believe
Three lines the whole course is built on.
“The denial was worse than the error.”
“If you can't show how the work was made, you can't stand behind it when someone asks.”
“Lawyers don't need another AI tool. They need a way to show their work.”
How it's earned
Earn the credential that holds up in the courtroom.
No credential issues on an exam alone. The practical assessment runs on a mock Missouri personal injury matter.
Declare the tool: complete a Tool Declaration Card
Keep the record: full records for a demand letter and a motion
Catch the plant: find a fake citation and a misstated real holding
Disclose correctly: the disclosure a named Missouri circuit rule requires
Answer discovery: a request for "all AI prompts," category by category
Correct the record: work through a post-filing error
The Verified Lawyer
This certifies that
Your Name
Has earned the credential
Certified Legal AI Practitioner
TVL-2026-XXXXXXRenews in 12 months
Built where you practice
The national courses skip the rules you actually file under.
Practice exercises use Missouri and Kansas personal injury law: limitation periods, comparative fault, and the Missouri med-mal cap.
| Where you file | What applies | What it asks of you |
|---|---|---|
| Missouri 7th, 17th, 20th and 46th Circuits | Local court rules | Disclose AI use and the tool; certify verification |
| Jackson County (16th Circuit) and others | Judge-level standing orders | Check each judge before filing |
| Missouri, statewide | Rule 4-1.1 cmt. [6]; Informal Ops. 2024-11 and 2026-09 | Competence and verification; informed client consent before confidential information enters certain AI tools |
| U.S. District Court, Kansas | Standing Order 26-01 | Verify everything; disclose or certify if the court asks |
| Shawnee County, Kansas | DCR 3.125 | Notice of AI use plus certification |
Firm templates
Adopt it the same week.
Tool Declaration CardContract terms and client-consent field
Prompt library entryOwner, version, approval
AI Use RecordFull and light tiers
Client advisoryOn using public AI tools
Expert retention clauseOn AI use by experts
One-page firm AI policyTools, inputs, verification, disclosure, incidents
Is this for you?
Built for practicing lawyers, not builders.
Built for you if you are
An attorney or staff member using AI on client matters
A managing partner who will answer for how the firm uses it
A firm administrator deciding which tools are allowed
A firm that wants one standard across the whole team (seats available)
Not for you if you want to
Learn to code or build AI tools
Master one vendor's product features
Get a badge without doing the work
No credential issues on an exam alone. That's the point.
FAQ
Straight answers before you sign up.
Does this count for CLE?
We plan to seek CLE accreditation in Missouri and Kansas. Until approval, we won't claim credit. Founding members will hear first.
Is this legal advice?
No. It's education and a documentation method. It doesn't replace your own duties under your jurisdiction's rules, or any disclosure your court requires.
Can I call myself a "certified specialist"?
No. This credential certifies a practice competency, not a specialty in a field of law. Each credential comes with approved bio language for Missouri and Kansas.
Does the credential expire?
Yes, after 12 months. The renewal covers what changed in the rules that year.
Can our firm buy seats?
Yes. Founding firms get seats for their whole team and a guided path toward the firm seal.
Does keeping the record create risk?
It can be requested in discovery or a sanctions motion. That's why Lesson 4 teaches what to record, how to label it, and how long to keep it.
What does it cost?
Founding pricing goes to the cohort first. Reserving a spot costs nothing and commits you to nothing.
Founding cohort
Help set the standard before it launches.
We're working with a small group of Missouri and Kansas lawyers and firms before launch. Founding members get early access to Module 1, the full template set, and a voice in what the standard requires.
No payment today
Founding pricing, shared with you first
A personal follow-up, not a drip campaign