Keep a practice correction log that supports follow-through
For practice managers and lawyers handling a document or workflow error.
What belongs in a correction log after an erroneous draft has circulated?
Record what was observed, which versions or recipients may be affected, who owns the response and how the correction will be verified. Keep the initial evidence intact. Record the next decision even while the full cause is being investigated.
Create a small, restricted first entry
Record discovery time with time zone, discoverer, file or message identifier, observed defect, known distribution, immediate action, assigned lawyer and next review time. Separate confirmed facts from inferences. Link to evidence in its proper restricted location and avoid copying confidential records into a broadly accessible tracker.
Determine whether the defective item was a private working copy, an externally sent message, a filed document or something still queued for delivery. Check the actual record of transmission. A file labeled sent or final cannot answer who received it.
Contain the error and assign decisions
Preserve the original version and the evidence of what happened. Stop further use of the affected copy where authorized. Identify downstream drafts, decisions and calendars that may depend on it. Assign a lawyer to assess effects on the client, required communications and any formal correction process. Use the relevant incident channel when the issue involves possible data exposure.
Close with proof of the repair
Identify the corrected version and a reviewer who checked the affected point. Record each required action and its result. A corrected draft on a shared drive proves the draft exists. Verification of delivery, filing or acknowledgment needs its own evidence. Keep prevention work separate from the immediate correction and give it its own owner and check date.
For a cybersecurity incident, NIST's response guidance offers a framework for preparing, responding and recovering. A routine drafting mistake and a security incident can require different escalation paths.
Worked example
Illustrative example. An internal chronology lists July 14 where a source shows July 17. The reviewer preserves the original, corrects the chronology and traces a summary prepared from it. The summary was distributed internally, so the owner identifies its recipients and verifies that the corrected version reached them. The log stays open until the dependent summary is checked.
Primary sources
Related work at Agentic Attorney
This correction log guide belongs to the shared Agentic Attorney resource collection. The hub describes AI consulting and implementation for legal teams. Explore Agentic Attorney’s approach to AI implementation.