Walking and Talking: AI as a New Tool for Oral Argument Preparation

The Bencher  |  May/June 2025

By Raffi Melkonian, Esquire

Late at night in my neighborhood, you might spot a peculiar sight: a lawyer pacing the sidewalks, deep in conversation with himself about federal jurisdiction or administrative procedure. For years, this has been one of my methods of preparing for oral arguments. Walking helps me think, and speaking aloud helps me refine my arguments, identify weaknesses, and distill complex cases down to their essential elements.

When I argue in the Fifth Circuit, my wandering takes me along the streets of the French Quarter in New Orleans at night, an odd participant in the late-night carousing along Bourbon Street. Who knows what people think as they watch me stumble by, muttering about standing doctrine under streetlights? But recently, I began considering whether modern technology might offer a way to enhance my talking walks. 

Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) dominate legal technology discussions today, though often with an air of caution. We’ve all seen the headlines about lawyers facing sanctions for submitting AI-generated briefs with phantom citations or fictitious cases. Some have used AI to draft documents without adequate review, leading to embarrassing or even ethically problematic results. But these cautionary tales, while important, don’t tell the whole story about AI’s potential role in legal practice.

My journey toward exploring AI as a preparation tool began, surprisingly, with French language practice. Like many casual language learners, I’m self-conscious about my accent and vocabulary. Speaking French to real people feels daunting—nobody wants to sound like a cartoon character in serious conversation. But I discovered that several AI platforms offer voice interaction modes, allowing users to engage in spoken dialogue. These AI programs proved to be patient, non-judgmental conversation partners (though I’m still waiting for one brave enough to critique my accent). I’ve been able to get a couple of models to walk me through common French scenarios: buying some bread, ordering wine, and most important, mollifying Parisians annoyed by a clueless American. 

This experience led me to wonder: Could AI serve a similar role in oral argument preparation? Could I have a “conversation” with an AI about my cases, using it as a sounding board to refine arguments and anticipate questions? To test this idea, I provided an AI platform with some briefs from old cases and engaged it in dialogue about the legal issues involved: “The judgment below should be reversed for X and Y reasons. Let me start with the first. What do you think about those arguments?” 

The results were intriguing. While an AI certainly can’t replace traditional moot court practice or discussions with colleagues, it showed promise as a supplementary tool. The AI could engage in reasonable dialogue about legal principles, pose logical follow-up questions, and help identify potential weaknesses in argument structure. It served as a sort of always-available, tireless law clerk—one willing to discuss the same point repeatedly as I worked through different approaches.

Is the technology ready for prime time? Not quite. Current AI systems still have significant limitations. They can make mistakes about legal principles, misunderstand complex factual scenarios, or occasionally generate completely incorrect information. Using them requires careful attention and constant fact-checking against authoritative sources.

However, the technology is evolving rapidly—more quickly than many in the legal profession might expect. Each new iteration brings improvements in accuracy, comprehension, and interaction capabilities.

While we must maintain appropriate skepticism and ensure ethical use, we should also be thinking proactively about how to harness these tools effectively. Perhaps in the near future, my late-night preparation walks will involve conversation with an AI assistant through earbuds rather than self-directed monologues. The neighbors might appreciate the change.

More importantly, this technology could offer new ways to prepare, practice, and refine our advocacy skills. As members of the legal profession, we have a responsibility to approach new technologies thoughtfully, understanding both their potential benefits and limitations. The key lies not in wholesale adoption or rejection, but in finding appropriate ways to integrate these tools into our existing practices.

Raffi Melkonian, Esquire, is an appellate partner at the Houston, Texas, law firm of Wright, Close & Barger LLP. He litigates appeals in the state and federal courts of Texas and around the United States. Melkonian is Master of the Bench member of the Garland R. Walker American Inn of Court.