An AI tool can find cases that support bringing a motion. Whether the motion is worth pursuing may turn on something no case will mention, such as a client’s wish to preserve a business relationship.
LexisNexis Canada uses that example in the third instalment of its series on agentic AI in Canadian legal practice. The company argues that oversight begins when a lawyer assigns the work. A tool that can research a procedural rule, find recent decisions and identify contrary cases in one assignment needs clear instructions about the jurisdiction, the facts that matter and the question the client needs answered.
Once the research comes back, finding the cited decision is only the first check. The lawyer still has to read the passage the tool relied on, see whether the decision remains current and weigh any cases that point the other way. Even if the authorities favour the motion, its cost or timing may lead the lawyer to recommend settlement.
For firms and legal departments, LexisNexis recommends making those expectations explicit. Lawyers should know which tools they can use with client information, which matters call for closer review and whom to tell when a tool gets something wrong.