Privilege as code, and the log that survives a sanctions motion — step 6 of 8

The log that survives a motion

Picture the bad afternoon. Opposing counsel has moved for sanctions, claiming your brief was AI-drafted and unverified. Far-fetched? Charlotin's database had logged 1,598 court decisions involving AI-fabricated material worldwide as of June 9, 2026 — and a court only writes that decision after someone put the accusation in front of a judge. Or the milder version: your judge is one of the many who now require certification of AI use in filings, and asks how this brief was prepared. Two lawyers get asked. One says "we reviewed it carefully" — a sentence with no dates, no names, and no evidentiary weight. The other hands up a log: every AI-assisted step, what was verified against what source, by whom, and who signed. Which lawyer would you rather be at that podium?

The market fact that should still offend you slightly: a CLE program here and there now mentions review logs and verification workflows, but what stays rare anywhere on the market is anyone making you keep one — entry by entry, graded — even though the evidence trail is the cheapest part of the whole discipline. It's also not just sanctions-defense. Opinion 512's supervision duties (Rules 5.1/5.3) expect lawyers to supervise tools like they supervise people, and you cannot demonstrate supervision you didn't record. The same log is your malpractice-defense file and your Rule 1.5 receipt — billing time actually spent is easy to honor when the log shows what was spent.

The log is one entry per AI-assisted task, and every field is a question someone will eventually ask:

• date, matter — when, and on whose behalf.
• tool — which system, with the model version written into the field: "firm-assist (model fa-3)", never just "firm-assist" and never "the AI." Tools change monthly and clearances attach to specific versions; a tribunal will ask which one, and the field should already answer.
• purpose — what the AI was asked to do: research synthesis, first draft, clause extraction. Scope of use is the first thing a standing order asks about.
• authorities_checked — the cite-check tally from lesson one, as a fraction: "6/6". This is where the gate's output lands. A log entry claiming verification without a count is the "reviewed carefully" sentence wearing a lanyard.
• verified_by — the human who ran the verification, by name. Not "team."
• signed_by — the attorney who signed the work out, by name. Candor to the tribunal is the attorney's duty, not the tool's, and the signature line is where that duty lives. For the non-lawyers in this path: this field is also your UPL boundary made visible — your name can appear in verified_by; signed_by is a licensed act.

An entry with all fields filled is READY. An entry missing any of them is INCOMPLETE, and incomplete entries don't average out — one unsigned filing is the one the motion will be about. So the completeness check is code, the same all-or-nothing shape as the cite-check gate, and it runs before anything leaves the building. You'll write it next.