AI Use and Writing Standards

published February, 2026

Why This Exists

Language is not merely information. It is commitment.

When I publish under my name, issue professional evaluations or provide sworn testimony, I stand behind the words. They accumulate across time. They carry reputational, professional and legal weight.

Large language models generate fluent language without bearing responsibility. Because of that, I use AI tools under defined constraints.

This page explains those constraints.

Core Principles

1. Authorship Requires Ownership

If my name stands under it, I must be able to defend it without assistance.

AI does not generate my moral positions, clinical judgments, forensic opinions or final evaluative conclusions.

2. Fluency Is Not Accountability

AI produces articulate language. Articulation does not equal authority, responsibility or understanding.

Responsibility remains with the human professional.

3. Moral and Forensic Claims Must Not Exceed Evidence

Strong claims require strong support.

If evidence supports negligence, I do not imply intent.
If evidence supports correlation, I do not assert causation.
In forensic contexts, conclusions remain within documented findings and established standards.

Precision protects credibility.

4. AI Is a Tool, Not a Substitute

AI may assist structure and technical refinement. It may not replace judgment, authorship, clinical responsibility or forensic reasoning.

Permissible Uses

I may use AI tools for:

  • Organizing ideas I have already generated
  • Extracting themes from prior work
  • Identifying logical gaps or overstatement
  • Mechanical editing (spelling, grammar, repetition)
  • Stress-testing clarity and structure
  • Identifying potentially relevant legal authorities, which I independently verify
  • Data collation and formatting
  • Refining clarity and efficiency in professional evaluations, with full de-identification
  • Practicing conceptual framing to improve therapeutic skill and precision
  • Preparing for court by organizing arguments, reviewing structure and stress-testing cross-examination vulnerabilities

Clinical, Forensic and Court Safeguards

  • No identifying client information is entered.
  • No reconstruction of missing details occurs.
  • AI does not generate diagnostic conclusions, forensic opinions or sworn testimony.
  • Final opinions and testimony are mine alone.
  • All legal authorities are independently reviewed prior to use in court or publication.

AI may assist in editing for clarity and structural preparation. It does not participate in care or testimony.

Legal and Technical References

Where legal standards, statutes or case law are discussed:

  • AI tools may assist in identifying potentially relevant authorities.
  • All cited materials are independently reviewed prior to publication or testimony.
  • Responsibility for accuracy and interpretation remains solely mine.

Authorship and Intellectual Lineage

The historical, literary and cultural references in my writing reflect my own intellectual formation. AI tools are not used to fabricate depth, generate substitute influences or decorate arguments with borrowed authority.

Disclosure

When AI materially assists structural organization, mechanical editing or legal reference identification, I disclose that assistance.

Responsibility for all arguments, conclusions and interpretations remains mine.

Standard Applied

Conviction is permitted.
Overstatement is not.

Force is permitted.
Indiscipline is not.

Scope

This framework governs my use of AI in:

  • Academic writing
  • Professional essays
  • Teaching-related materials
  • Clinical skill refinement
  • Editing and efficiency in evaluations
  • Preparation for court testimony

It does not address broader societal or economic questions about AI. It establishes the professional standards I apply to my own work.