By Bill Hartzer · Published · How this site is researched
Clause 7 asks for a record made as the work proceeds, not reconstructed under an order. An AI-use log is the form that record takes, and it is what makes the disclosure required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) a matter of copying rather than of recollection. It is deliberately short: a log nobody fills in is worse than no log at all, because it creates the appearance of a practice that was not followed. Fill the header block once at retention and add a row each time a system is used. Everything else on this page is explanation.
The book's Chapter Twenty-Seven explains what the log is for and works through a full engagement. What follows is the blank, reproduced here because a template printed in a book is a template nobody can edit. It is free to use and to adapt, including in paid work, with no permission needed and no attribution required. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and whether any of it suits your engagement is a question for you and for retaining counsel.
Appendix A — AI-use log template
Chapter Twenty-Seven explains what a log is for and reproduces a full worked engagement. This appendix is the blank.
An editable version, in several formats, is on the companion page. Use whatever tool you will actually keep up — the format matters far less than the habit.
The header block
Filled once, at the start of the engagement.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Matter identifier | Your reference, not the caption |
| Retained by | Firm and attorney |
| Date of retention | |
| AI protocol | Standard adopted; any engagement-specific variation |
| Accounts and tiers permitted | Which system, which tier, which account |
| Protective order | Date read; designations; restrictions on external processing |
| Confirmed with counsel | What was asked, what was answered, on what date |
The entry block
One per occasion of substantive work. Most take under two minutes.
| Field | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| Date | Date of the work. If written later, both dates. |
| Task | What you were doing, in a sentence. |
| System and account | Which system, which tier, which account. Or no system used. |
| Request, in substance | Not a transcript. What you asked for. |
| Verification | What you did to satisfy yourself the output was sound, and against what. |
| Disposition | Adopted · Adopted after verification · Set aside · Superseded |
| Artifacts | File paths to any script, output, export, or list this entry refers to. |
The four rules
Same day. Entries are made the day of the work. Where that fails, the entry says so.
Corrections are added, never made. A new dated line referring to the original. Do not edit history.
Gaps are recorded. No entries 12–19 August; travel; no substantive work on this matter. A log with no gaps across nine months is not credible.
Every entry ends with verification. An entry recording only that a system was used is incomplete. Chapter Twenty-Seven has the comparison.
Entries worth making even when no system was used
Four occasions where the entry is valuable precisely because it records an absence or a decision.
The date you reached your conclusion. The single most valuable line in the log. Conclusion reached from the records; no system consulted about the merits of this matter to this date.
The date you tested the contrary reading, and what it produced.
Any occasion you set an output aside and re-derived a result independently — with what you found and what you did.
Any instruction or confirmation from counsel about protocol, protection, or preservation, with the date you asked.
What does not go in
Your conclusions about the case. The content of communications from counsel. Speculation about anyone's conduct. Chapter Twenty-Seven explains each.
* * *
Using it
Copy the page into whatever you already work in. A word processor, a spreadsheet, a notes application and a text file all satisfy the obligation equally, and the tool matters far less than whether the record was made at the time. What does not satisfy it is intending to write the record up later, because the value of a contemporaneous record is precisely that it was contemporaneous, and that property cannot be added afterwards.
This working paper is reproduced here in full. The other five, and what each contains, are on the working papers page. The full reasoning behind all of them is in the book.