AI Policy for Law Firms

For law firms, the AI question is sharper than for almost anyone else: client confidentiality and privilege are professional obligations, and several bar associations have issued guidance that lawyers remain fully responsible for AI-assisted work and must protect client information entered into these tools. A written policy is how a firm turns that guidance into something every associate and paralegal actually follows.

The confidentiality problem in one sentence

An AI tool that trains on its inputs, or retains them, can turn "I pasted the draft motion to speed up editing" into a disclosure of client-confidential material. The fix isn't banning AI — it's approving tools that contractually don't train on inputs and writing down which data may go where.

What a law-firm AI policy should cover

• Confidential and privileged material: permitted only in tools approved at your highest data tier, with no training on inputs and a DPA in place.
• Human responsibility: the lawyer of record reviews and is accountable for any AI-assisted work product — no exceptions, consistent with bar guidance.
• Accuracy and citations: a hard rule against relying on AI for legal authority without verifying against a primary source (the fabricated-citation problem is real and sanctionable).
• Client disclosure: a position you can state when clients ask how you use AI on their matters.
• An approval process so the firm adopts useful tools deliberately instead of leaving each person to decide alone.

This is general information, not legal or ethics advice; confirm against your jurisdiction's bar guidance. The kit is built to be reviewed and adapted by your own counsel.