Benefits
- Benefit
-
Cut time on four legal tasks by 11.8% to 32.1%
Awaiting review
- Outcome identifiers
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Category
-
Reduced Task Time
Awaiting review
- Status
-
Reported benefit
Awaiting review
- Beneficiary groups
-
People.
Awaiting review
- Beneficiaries
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Reach
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Distribution and access
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Duration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Expected?
-
Yes
Awaiting review
- Costs and harms
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
AI system
- System
-
GPT-4
Awaiting review
- Model
-
This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Release
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Provider
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Role
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Configuration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Inputs and outputs
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Autonomy
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Workflow
-
Students took about two hours of online training in using GPT-4 for legal work. Tasks mirrored the work of junior associates. Graders scored the work blind to the assignment.
Awaiting review
- Human oversight
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Relation to AI
-
Students were randomly assigned to complete each task with or without GPT-4, and graders were blind to the assignment, so the time and grade differences isolate the effect of the tool.
Awaiting review
- AI contribution
-
Students were randomly assigned to complete each task with or without GPT-4, and graders were blind to the assignment, so the time and grade differences isolate the effect of the tool.
Awaiting review
Measurement
- Studies
-
Randomized. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Studies
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Study design
-
Randomized. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Study design
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Measurement
-
Self-tracked time on task and blind grading on a 4.0 scale. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measurement
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Setting and sample
-
60 University of Minnesota law students, 240 task completions. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Setting and sample
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Measures
-
Minutes per task and grade. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measures
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Comparison
-
Same tasks without GPT-4. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Comparison
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Results
-
Time down 24.1% (complaint), 32.1% (contract), 21.1% (handbook), 11.8% (memo); grade gain significant only for the contract. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Results
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Additional value from AI
-
Faster on all four tasks. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Additional value from AI
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
- Limitations
-
Students in place of practicing lawyers; small sample; designed tasks. [2]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Limitations
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [2]
Money
- Kind of value
-
The kind of monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Amount
-
The monetary value is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Currency and prices
-
The currency and price basis are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Period and unit
-
The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Realization
-
Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Recipients and payers
-
The recipients and payers are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Gross or net
-
Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Included costs
-
The costs included in the estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Comparison
-
The financial comparison is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Method
-
The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Return and payback
-
The return on investment or payback period is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
People and places
- Participants
-
Developer:
OpenAI. Operator: University of Minnesota Law School researchers (Choi, Monahan and Schwarcz).Awaiting review
- Jurisdictions
-
Benefit: University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis,
United States. Developer: United States. Operator: United States.Awaiting review
- Ownership and control
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Dependencies
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Cross-border connections
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Geopolitical implications
-
The geopolitical implications are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Follow-up
- Conditions for replication
-
The user must check the model's legal output for errors. The task must be one where the model helps; it helped least on the client memo.
Awaiting review
- Replication attempts
-
1 follow-up entry. Benefit recurred: 1.
Awaiting review
- Later findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Availability
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Institutional decision
-
A relevant institutional decision has not been established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Grounds
-
The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Action and result
-
The result of an institutional decision is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Success criterion
-
The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Evidence
- Source numbers
-
AIBD-0667-source-0001–0002
Awaiting review
- Citations
-
Numbered references below.
Awaiting review
- Language
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Source relationships
-
Independent
Awaiting review
- Original evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Access and versions
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Supported findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence links
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence strength
-
Independently studied. Sources: two independent reports. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1] [2]
- Missing evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
Grades
- Assessed benefits
-
People.
Awaiting review
- Depth
-
People: 1.
Awaiting review
- Reasons
-
People: Students with GPT-4 finished each legal task faster, saving 11.8% to 32.1% of their time.
Awaiting review
- Observed or intended
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Rubric
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Assessor and date
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Alternative assessments
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Fill
-
Independently studied
Awaiting review
Entry details
- Kind
-
The case describes an evaluation or a study. A randomized trial. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Kind
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Related entries
-
Both cases concern a person who uses ChatGPT or GPT-4 to draft legal documents, where the drafter is held responsible for fabricated or wrong content in the result.
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Related entries
Compared with the incidents in the AI Incident Database snapshot of 26 October 2026; a second reading confirmed that the incident concerns the same kind of system and stakeholder.
Sources: incidentdatabase.ai
- Field
-
Legal services.
Awaiting review
- Purpose
-
GPT-4 is a general-purpose language model. The study tested its use for legal drafting and analysis.
Awaiting review
- Dates
-
Source information as of: August 2023. Updated: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
- Stage
-
The system was tested in a laboratory. Students completed designed tasks in a study. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Stage
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Version
-
SHA-256: 2461df1227b1…
Awaiting review: supporting details for Version
SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.
References
- Other identifiers
-
AI Incident Database: 541.
Awaiting review
- Category mappings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Citable summary
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Revisions
-
2 revisions. Latest: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
Sources
-
Report Independent author
Choi JH, Monahan AB, Schwarcz D. Lawyering in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Minnesota Law Review. 2024;109:147. doi:10.24926/265535.4225 (student-edited law review).
We found that access to GPT-4 only slightly and inconsistently improved the quality of participants' legal analysis but induced large and consistent increases in speed.
-
Report Independent author
We recruited students from the University of Minnesota Law School in April 2023 to participate in our study over