Complaints about “AI prose” often miss the real issue: the problem isn’t the machine but the editor. Two things are usually going on. First, readers sometimes mistake unfamiliarity for inferiority. AI systems draw on a wider range of punctuation and syntactic patterns than many lawyers typically use. What feels “off” may simply reflect the lawyer’s limited stylistic repertoire. Second—and more important—many writers lack the editorial skill to reshape AI-generated text into polished prose that reflects their own voice and standards
AI output is draft text, not finished work. Lawyers without a strong sense of style tend to accept what should be refined, overlook what should be cut, and miss opportunities to sharpen emphasis or improve flow. The result is writing that feels generic not because AI produced it, but because no skilled editor took ownership. The bottleneck has shifted: in an AI-assisted world, the constraint is no longer generating text but exercising judgment.
Strong editors, by contrast, gain a decisive advantage. They can take a competent draft and bring structure, refine tone, and align the prose with professional expectations. They recognize when punctuation adds clarity or emphasis and when it distracts, and they revise accordingly. The lesson is simple: AI doesn’t diminish the importance of good writing—it makes editorial skill the defining mark of good writing.
If you want to learn a more sophisticated approach to AI, try our Advanced Legal Writing and Editing seminar. It will open your eyes to new possibilities for you and your practice.