As artificial intelligence becomes more common in hiring, both candidates and employers risk relying on it too heavily. For lawyers, that can mean resumes filled with vague, inflated language. For legal departments, it can mean job descriptions that misrepresent the role. A better approach: Pair AI with preparation and careful editing.
Artificial intelligence has quickly worked its way into every corner of the hiring process, from resumes to job descriptions. In theory, that should make life easier for both candidates and employers. Used wisely, AI can speed up drafting, smooth out awkward sentences and provide a framework that saves time. But when used as a crutch, it produces documents that are inaccurate, inflated or so vague that they mislead both sides of the hiring table.
I see the effects of this every week in my work as a legal recruiter. A resume that looks glossy but doesn’t match a candidate’s true experience. A job description that says all the right things but doesn’t reflect what the company actually needs. And resumes and job descriptions scattered with redundancies and nonsensical fluff.
My diagnosis: Too much AI, not enough human oversight.
Fortunately, these pitfalls are avoidable. With some discipline and preparation, candidates and employers alike can harness technology’s benefits without sacrificing accuracy or credibility.
For Candidates: Keep Your Resume Real (and Ready)
Resumes are often the first place candidates experiment with AI. That makes sense because few lawyers enjoy marketing themselves, and the blank page can feel intimidating. AI can absolutely help with formatting, word choice and even breaking down dense experience into digestible bullets.
The danger comes when candidates outsource too much of the substance. Recently, I met with a lawyer whose resume looked polished on the surface but didn’t align with her actual skills. When I pressed, she admitted she had asked AI to “optimize” her resume for keywords used by applicant tracking systems. It might have helped her get past an algorithm, but it fell flat with me as a human reader. The language was generic, the claims were vague, and it raised more questions than it answered.
This isn’t just a cosmetic issue. Even unintentional exaggerations can damage your credibility. If an interviewer spots gaps between what your resume says and what you can actually discuss, it undermines trust. And in a profession that prizes judgment and precision, credibility is everything.
So what’s the alternative? Preparation. One of the smartest habits a lawyer can develop is keeping a running record of their key matters, transactions and accomplishments — a so-called “brag book.” This doesn’t have to be anything fancy: A simple Word document, spreadsheet or even a notes app will do. The important thing is to update it regularly, ideally in real time, but at least once a year.
Think about the deals you closed, the litigation you handled, the compliance programs you launched, the leadership initiatives you spearheaded. Capture specifics: dollar values, industries, jurisdictions and subject matters, unique nuances, results. Include details on your personal role and responsibilities. Months or years later, when it’s time to update your resume, you’ll be glad you did. Without a brag book, you’re relying on memory to reconstruct complex matters that may already be fading into the past. That often leads to either underselling your experience or padding it with vague language, sometimes supplied by AI, that doesn’t do you justice.
Maintaining a brag book isn’t just about future job searches, either. It can support year-end reviews, compensation discussions and even conversations with mentors or sponsors about career goals. In other words, it’s not just a defensive measure; it’s a tool to actively manage your career.
For Employers: Keep Job Descriptions Current
Employers face a parallel problem. Job descriptions are another place where AI is often used as a shortcut. I recently reviewed a posting for a company hiring its first in-house lawyer. The opening paragraph was strong, but the following sections didn’t line up with what the company had told us. One part emphasized securities work that wasn’t relevant, another leaned heavily on compliance, and the third was a jumble of keyword-heavy fluff. It was obvious that AI had been used to compose the job description.
The risk here is more than just awkward wording. A misaligned job description attracts the wrong candidates, wastes time in interviews and ultimately risks a bad hire. For a legal department stretched thin and needing to hire the right person as efficiently as possible, using a poorly written job description is a costly mistake.
Even without AI, many job descriptions are outdated. Too often, companies dust off the last version of a posting only after a lawyer resigns. By then, the description may be years out of date, bearing little resemblance to what the role has become. A contracts counsel may now spend half their time on compliance. A corporate lawyer may have taken on ESG responsibilities. A paralegal role may have shifted into more of a legal operations function.
The best practice is to review and revise job descriptions while the current employee is still in the role. Ask: Which responsibilities have grown or diminished? What skills have proven most valuable? How has the role interacted with other parts of the business? Doing this proactively, rather than reactively, ensures that the description is accurate and compelling when it’s time to recruit.
A practical way to build this habit is to tie job description reviews to your existing processes. Annual performance reviews, budget planning or strategic planning cycles are all natural points to check whether a role has evolved. That way, if and when the position opens up, you won’t be scrambling to capture what the job really requires.
The Common Thread
Candidates and employers are mirror images of each other in this process. Candidates undersell or misstate their experience when they rely too heavily on AI — or on memory — without maintaining accurate records. Employers misrepresent roles when they rely too heavily on AI — or on outdated descriptions — without capturing the real work being done.
Both problems are avoidable with the same solution: preparation. For candidates, that means keeping a brag book and updating your resume annually. For employers, that means reviewing job descriptions before a vacancy arises and ensuring they reflect reality, not outdated assumptions.
The Bottom Line
AI is a powerful tool, but it still needs human oversight. It can polish language, fix formatting and generate a first draft. What it can’t do is ensure accuracy, credibility or alignment with real-world responsibilities.
For candidates, your resume is your professional story. For employers, your job description is your invitation to join that story. In both cases, make sure you, not an algorithm, are the one telling it.
Stacy Humphries is president of Pye Legal Group, an executive search firm that specializes in building in-house legal and compliance teams through permanent recruiting and interim staffing. Before her recruiting career, she was a lawyer with Vinson & Elkins and the vice president of legal affairs for the Houston Rockets and Toyota Center.