AI agent skills CV section for a paralegal

Paralegals check whether a statement is supported by the documents. That is the same test a law firm applies to an AI agent's summary, chronology or first-pass review: is every point grounded in a source, and is anything missing? This CV section shows you can apply it, with a template and a filled litigation sample.

Where do agents show up in paralegal work?

Firms use agents to summarise long documents, build chronologies from disclosure, flag documents that may be privileged, extract terms from contracts and draft first versions of routine documents. Each of these can save hours. Each can also go wrong in a way that matters: a summary that states something no document says, a chronology with a date from the wrong exhibit, a privileged email marked for disclosure.

In governed agent terms, the first test is whether an answer is grounded, tied to its source. Paralegals have always done that check. The guide on how a paralegal should show AI agent skills on a CV covers why it is your strongest selling point.

How do you fill it in?

Choose bullets around four tasks: document review, chronologies or bundles, privilege and confidentiality, and checking drafts. For each, say the volume, what you checked and what you caught. If you have used a review platform with automated tagging or an AI summary tool, say what you verified.

Stay inside your authority. Paralegals support fee earners; any bullet that implies you gave legal advice will worry a careful reader.

The CV section template

Document review and source checking

Paralegal in [practice area], ready to review agent-drafted [summaries / chronologies / first-pass review tags] and check every point against its source.

• Reviewed [volume] documents for [disclosure / due diligence]; tagged for [relevance / privilege] with [quality measure]
• Built [chronologies / bundles] for [type of matter]; checked each entry against [the source document]
• Flagged [privileged / confidential] material and escalated [type] to [fee earner]
• Checked [drafts / citations / extracted terms] produced by [colleagues / a tool]; [what you caught]

Certificate or training: [name], [issuer], [dates], [verification link]

A filled sample

A sample for an invented paralegal, Chloe, in the litigation team of an invented commercial law firm:

Document review and source checking

Paralegal in commercial litigation, ready to review agent-drafted summaries, chronologies and first-pass review tags, and check every point against its source.

• Reviewed around 4,000 documents for disclosure in a contract dispute; tagged for relevance and privilege, with second-level review finding few changes
• Built chronologies for three trials; checked every entry against the exhibit it cited and corrected dates carried over from draft witness statements
• Flagged emails involving in-house lawyers as potentially privileged and escalated them to the supervising associate before any disclosure decision
• Checked summaries produced by an AI summary tool during a pilot; found two that stated a payment date not in the underlying documents, and recommended every summary carry links to the pages it relied on

Certificate or training: introductory badge in governed AI agents, [issuer], [date], [link]

Chloe's final bullet does two things. It catches an ungrounded statement, which is the most serious error an agent can make in legal work. And it proposes a control, source links on every summary, that makes the next error easy to spot. That is the step from reviewer to someone who improves the system.

What should you keep off this section?

Client names, matter names, case numbers and anything from a sealed or confidential proceeding. Courtroom outcomes you had no part in deciding. Claims of legal judgement that belong to qualified lawyers.

Also keep tool names generic: "a review platform", "a document management system", "an AI summary tool". Firms use different systems; your checking skills transfer between them.

How does a paralegal's section differ from a legal secretary's or a recruiter's?

A legal secretary's section centres on deadlines, letters and the final check before sending; yours centres on substance and sources. A recruiter's section is about fair decisions on people, not documents, but shares the need to justify every decision with evidence. Compare the CV section for a recruiter and the CV section for a call centre agent to see how other roles frame review.