When a Judge Asks: “Did You Use AI?” — How NEAR AI + nStamp Can Help Lawyers Answer with Confidence
Courts are slowly getting used to AI. Judges read headlines about fake AI-generated cases, privacy leaks, and sloppy arguments. So it’s not surprising that, in some hearings, a judge may look at a lawyer and simply ask:
“Counsel, did you use AI to prepare this?”
At that moment, “yes” or “no” is not enough. What really matters is:
Can you prove that you used AI responsibly?
This is where NEAR AI and nStamp can give lawyers a serious advantage.
Why Judges Care About AI at All
From a judge’s point of view, AI is not “magic tech” — it’s just another tool that can:
Make up fake cases (hallucinations).
Misquote real decisions.
Handle confidential client data in unknown ways.
So when a judge asks if AI was used, they are really trying to get at three questions:
Is the law in this brief real and accurate?
Did the lawyer actually check the work or just copy–paste AI output?
Was the client’s sensitive data handled safely?
If a lawyer can show solid answers to those three, most judges will relax. AI becomes acceptable, as long as the lawyer stays in full control.
NEAR AI: Private, Verifiable AI for Legal Work
NEAR AI Cloud / Private Chat is built for “trust, but verify” use cases.
For legal work, that matters in a few key ways.
1. Hardware-backed privacy (TEEs)
NEAR AI can run large language models inside Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs). In simple words:
The model runs in a secure “enclave”.
Data is encrypted even while the model is using it.
Infrastructure operators can’t just peek into your prompts.
For a lawyer, that means you can use AI to:
Summarize long disclosure.
Brainstorm arguments.
Draft first versions of sections.
…without throwing client data into some random, invisible cloud.
2. Attestation: Proving which model was used
Because NEAR AI runs in TEEs, it can produce attestation reports. These reports can prove things like:
Which model (and version / hash) was used.
That it ran in a secure enclave.
That the code wasn’t silently changed.
You don’t have to show the judge your private prompts. But you can say:
“Yes, Your Honour. I used NEAR AI as an assistive tool. Here’s an attestation proving the model and secure environment. I then verified every case in official legal databases and take full responsibility for the content.”
That is far stronger than “I used some website, but trust me.”
nStamp: Proving When and How the Work Evolved
Now add nStamp on top of that.
nStamp is a simple, powerful idea:
Take a file → hash it → record that hash and timestamp on NEAR.
For a law practice, this becomes a timeline of your work:
Draft 1 of the brief → hash + nStamp
Research memo with real cases → hash + nStamp
Final version before filing → hash + nStamp
You don’t put the client’s text on-chain, only the hash.
Later, you can re-hash your local PDF/DOCX and show it matches the stamp.
This lets you prove:
“I had this draft on this date.”
“I didn’t secretly rewrite the brief after the hearing.”
“This research memo existed before I argued the motion.”
Combined with NEAR AI, you don’t just say, “I prepared carefully” — you can show a cryptographic trail.
Putting It Together: A “Legal Mode” Workflow
Here’s how a NEAR-powered workflow might look in practice.
Step 1: Use NEAR AI in Legal Mode
The lawyer opens NEAR AI Private Chat (maybe branded as a “Legal Mode” assistant):
Uses AI to summarize disclosure.
Asks for issue-spotting and alternative arguments.
Keeps prompts reasonably general (no unnecessary personal data).
All of this runs in a TEE with attestation available.
Step 2: Manual verification
The lawyer then:
Pulls cases from official sources (CanLII, Westlaw, Lexis, court websites).
Checks every citation, quote, and legal point.
Writes a short memo like “How I verified the AI output.”
AI is a helper, not the source of truth.
Step 3: Stamp the key artefacts with nStamp
For key documents, the lawyer (or the firm’s document system) calls nStamp:
hash(final_brief.pdf) → nStamp
hash(research_memo.docx) → nStamp
Optionally, hash(redacted_AI_usage_log.json) → nStamp
Now there is a NEAR-chain record tying your work to specific points in time.
Step 4: If the judge asks
If the judge asks, “Did you use AI?” the lawyer can calmly answer:
“Yes, Your Honour. I used NEAR AI in a hardware-secured environment as a drafting assistant. Here is the attestation for the model and environment, and here are nStamp records showing when my drafts and research memos were created. I independently verified every case and I take full responsibility for all arguments.”
This ticks every box a serious court cares about:
Accuracy
Accountability
Privacy
Traceability
Why This Matters for the Future of Legal AI
For lawyers, the question is no longer “AI or no AI?”
The real question is:
“Can I show that I used AI in a responsible, professional, verifiable way?”
NEAR AI provides the trusted, private AI environment.
nStamp provides the immutable, time-stamped evidence of your work.
Together, they turn a nervous “yes” into a confident one.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, technical advice, or a recommendation to use any specific tool in a particular case. Use of AI, NEAR AI, or nStamp does not guarantee compliance with any court rules or professional conduct standards. Readers should consult the relevant rules in their jurisdiction and seek advice from a qualified lawyer or compliance professional before adopting any AI-assisted workflow.