A document summary may read fluently while omitting the exception that matters most. Legal AI software should therefore be evaluated through a verifiable task: what source was used, what was produced and who checks the result before the firm relies on it?
For Egyptian lawyers, a specialist label does not establish coverage of current Egyptian legislation or access to authoritative judgments. Ask the supplier to explain its sources and the actual function being demonstrated.
Where legal AI software may assist
Document summaries
Specify whether the task is to identify parties, obligations, dates, facts or questions for a reviewer. Ask for relevant source locations when supported. Compare the summary with the original, including conditions, qualifications and exceptions.
Draft preparation
Provide approved facts and clear instructions. Require missing information to be identified rather than invented. Review names, amounts, dates, requests and citations before using a draft. Confident legal language is not evidence of correctness.
Review checklists
An initial output can suggest matters to investigate. Verify every item before treating it as a fact about the file or assuming that a document mentioned by the tool actually exists.
Review facts, sources and applicability
First check the output against the file's names, descriptions and numbers. Then open the cited source and read the relevant passage in context. Assess legal relevance and currency for the matter, followed by the suitability of the final wording for its intended use.
The primary Lawyer LLaMA technical report discusses specialised knowledge and incorrect generation in a particular research setting. It does not establish any supplier's performance in Egyptian law. Use product-specific tests rather than borrowing research results as a product claim.
Ask how sources are updated and what they cover. Today's date on an answer does not prove that the applicable rule has been checked. If a citation cannot be verified, do not use it as an established authority.
Review client data before uploading
Confirm whether the tool is approved for the firm's use, where information is processed, who can access it, retention arrangements and any training use. Obtain answers for the actual service and subscription.
Use fictional documents for demonstrations where possible. Removing a client's name may not anonymise a file if its facts, amounts or attachments identify the parties.
Keep professional responsibility clear
Define permitted tasks, allowed inputs, reviewers and approval. Record how staff report errors and retain approved outputs under the firm's policy. Consider verification and correction work when evaluating usefulness, rather than measuring speed alone.
Alhossam's materials describe assistance with search, summaries and draft preparation under legal-team supervision. Confirm the available functions, sources, data terms and plan limits using a document whose output you can check.
Frequently asked questions
Can a summary be approved without reading the source?
Check the parts to be relied on against the original and its context, particularly qualifications and material facts.
Does a specialised assistant guarantee correct judgments?
No. Verify the source, citation, relevance and currency independently.
Can any tool receive client files?
Follow the firm's confidentiality and data policies and review the actual service terms before uploading.
Test assistance alongside review
Book an Alhossam demonstration to evaluate legal AI software using a bounded task and an identifiable reviewer. Record corrections needed before accepting the result.