AI and Legal Help: Why Your Own Words Matter

A better way to get legal help: Why your own words matter

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT and Claude can be incredibly useful. They can help organize information, explain unfamiliar concepts, brainstorm ideas, and make writing easier. Like any tool, however, AI has its limitations, and using it to prepare a request for legal assistance can sometimes create more problems than it solves.

In the ATPE Member Legal Services Department, we want to give our members the most accurate, helpful legal guidance possible. The best way to help us do that is to submit your statements, complaints, and requests for assistance through the Member Legal Services Intake System (MLSIS) in your own words, using specific facts and dates.

Here’s why that matters.

AI can sound confident and still be wrong

AI tools can produce polished, professional-sounding explanations of legal issues. The problem is that a convincing explanation isn’t necessarily a correct one.

AI-generated submissions may include inaccurate statements of the law, nonexistent legal violations, or legal theories that don’t apply to the circumstances described. An AI tool may also make assumptions about what happened, exaggerate the significance of an incident, or present a possibility as an established fact.

Even when the legal information is generally accurate, it may not apply to your particular situation. Proper legal analysis depends on details such as the dates involved, the type of school district or employer, the specific actions taken, and the procedural steps that have already occurred.

An AI tool doesn’t necessarily know these details, and it cannot reliably fill in the gaps. It may instead produce an answer that sounds authoritative but rests on assumptions that aren’t supported by the facts.

More words don’t necessarily mean more information

Another challenge is that AI-generated submissions can be unnecessarily long, repetitive, or filled with questions that aren’t relevant to the member’s actual concern.

An AI-assisted submission might identify numerous potential legal violations, raise hypothetical scenarios, or include a lengthy list of questions about issues that may never arise. Meanwhile, the specific incident that prompted the member to contact ATPE can become difficult to find or lack the necessary details.

This complicates the job of the assigned attorney, who must sort through the submission, distinguish actual events from assumptions, identify the questions that matter, and determine which legal issues warrant a response.

There is also a more difficult situation that sometimes arises: An attorney may explain why an AI-generated legal conclusion is incorrect, only to find that the member continues to rely on the AI’s answer. We understand why this happens. AI tools can sound remarkably certain, and members—quite reasonably—want to understand their rights. But a confident answer from an AI tool is not a substitute for an attorney’s analysis of the actual facts and applicable law.

Our role isn’t to debate an AI-generated response. It’s to help you understand your situation, identify the relevant legal issues, and make informed decisions based on accurate legal guidance.

Give us the facts, and let us identify the legal issues

You don’t need to know which law applies to your situation before asking ATPE for help. That’s part of what our attorneys are here to do. Instead of using AI to generate your legal summary, start by explaining what actually happened.

Include:

• What happened? Describe the incident or concern in your own words.
• When did it happen? Include specific dates or the best estimates you can provide if you don’t know the exact dates.
• Who was involved? Identify the relevant individuals by their roles or relationships to the incident, using appropriate privacy precautions.
• What has happened since? Explain any meetings, conversations, written communications, decisions, or other steps that followed.
• What concerns you most? Tell us what you’re worried about, what you don’t understand, or what you would like help determining.
• What outcome are you seeking? When applicable, include a brief description of your preferred outcome.

Include relevant documents or communications when requested or appropriate, and distinguish what you personally observed from what someone else told you or what you believe may have happened.

You don’t need to use legal terminology, cite statutes, or build a case for us. A straightforward account of the facts is often far more useful than several pages of legal analysis generated by AI.

Simply explain what happened and what concerns you have, and our attorneys will evaluate the legal issues based on the facts you provide.

Protect your privacy, too

There is another important consideration when using AI tools: confidentiality.

Depending on the tool, its settings, and its terms of service, information entered into an AI system may be stored or processed in ways you do not expect. You should not assume that information entered into an AI tool is confidential simply because you are using it to ask a question.

This is especially important for educators, who may have access to sensitive information about students, families, colleagues, and their schools.

Before entering information into an AI tool, avoid including student names, identifying student details, personnel information, confidential communications, or other sensitive information. Even a combination of details that seem harmless on their own can be combined to identify a person or reveal confidential information. School names, campus locations, job titles, and other identifying details may also make a situation recognizable.

When in doubt, leave identifying information out. You can often ask a general question without sharing names or other details that identify the people involved.

There may also be implications for attorney-client privilege. Sharing confidential legal communications or information with a third-party AI tool could jeopardize the confidentiality needed to preserve that privilege, depending on the circumstances and the tool’s privacy and data-handling practices.

Keep these in mind when seeking assistance from ATPE. Provide the information necessary for our attorneys to understand and evaluate your situation, while taking appropriate care with confidential information.

AI has its place, but let your story speak for itself

We recognize that AI can be a valuable tool, and we’re not suggesting that members avoid it altogether. If you find AI helpful for organizing your thoughts or understanding unfamiliar terminology, it can have a place in that process. Just be cautious about treating its answers as accurate legal advice or allowing it to supply facts, conclusions, or allegations that you cannot independently verify.

When you’re requesting assistance through MLSIS, though, your own words are usually the best place to start. Your account doesn’t need to sound like a legal brief. It doesn’t need to identify every conceivable violation or anticipate every possible question. It needs to tell us what happened, when it happened, and why you’re concerned.

That gives your assigned attorney a clearer starting point, reduces the time spent sorting through unsupported assumptions, and helps us focus on what matters most: providing you with accurate, relevant, and useful legal guidance.

You bring us the facts. We’ll handle the legal analysis.

The legal information provided here is accurate as of the date of publication. It is provided here for informative purposes only. Individual legal situations vary greatly, and readers needing individual legal advice should consult directly with an attorney. Please note: Rights based on the Texas Education Code may not apply to all. Many Texas Education Code provisions do not apply to public charter schools, and public school districts may have opted out of individual provisions through a District of Innovation plan. Eligible ATPE members may contact the ATPE Member Legal Services Department.