Adoption
Can the firm put this into practice and keep it working?
Adoption feasibility
HOW IT WORKS
This framework answers a narrow question: may this firm use this particular tool for this particular piece of legal work — and once it may, who drafts, who checks what, and who signs it off?
It is deliberately not a rating of AI products. The same tool can be right for one task and barred for the next, because what changes is the work, not the software.
Every task goes through the same five, in two phases.
Say exactly what you are producing, for whom, and what it has to be right about.
Score the tool on three separate questions, and let the answers decide whether it may be used.
Decide, stage by stage, who drafts, who checks what, and who approves.
Carry out the task under the plan, in your usual systems.
Make the plan’s checks, above all at the high-risk points, have a named person approve the exact output, and release it as a separate act.
Step 2 asks three separate questions about one configuration doing one task. Each is scored from 1 to 5 against fixed wording. They are never averaged. The overall rating is the lowest of the three, and due diligence is a gate: the rating cannot be higher than the due diligence score.
Can the firm put this into practice and keep it working?
Adoption feasibility
Does it save total human work at the required quality?
Efficiency likelihood
Can the firm’s governance carry the risk this use creates?
Governance suitability
Because averaging lets a good answer hide a bad one. A tool that scores 5 for saving work, 4 for being easy to run and 1 because a mandatory condition fails averages to 3.33 — which reads as “moderate”, and conceals the one answer that should have stopped it.
So the three stay separate and the weakest one governs. The overall rating is that lowest score. It is not an average. A score of 1 on any question means the tool is not used for that task, however strong the other two are. Recording a different overall rating does not change that recommendation.
| Score | Adoption | Efficiency | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Access, information or reviewer absent. | Minimum quality unreachable, or checking impossible. | A mandatory condition confirmed to fail, or stated by the supplier to be impossible. |
| 2 | Preparation dominates, or comprehension depends on one person. | Forecast: more total work than the manual route without a matching quality gain. | An applicable mandatory AI-specific answer is Not confirmed. |
| 3 | Feasible within existing resources, with manageable setup. | Reference point: quality and total work comparable with careful manual work. | Applicable mandatory conditions met, with at least one answer Public claim only. |
| 4 | Good fit; changes announced or detectable, and reassessment assigned. | Forecast: a task-relevant advantage that survives all required checking. | Controls cover the task; applicable mandatory answers Confirmed, or none applies. |
| 5 | Strong fit and sustained capability, with negligible added burden. | A strong advantage after all required work, shown by an observed result. | Prevention, detection, response and recovery integrated with existing frameworks, including a supplier commitment to notify incidents. |
Doing the work by hand is always one of the options, and it is scored too: adoption 5, because the firm already works this way; efficiency 3, the reference point every tool is measured against; governance 4, because no AI condition applies to it.
The governance question is the one where your evidence, not your opinion, sets the limit. Each mandatory condition sits in one of four states, and the weakest one caps the mark.
| What you can honestly say | Recorded as | Caps governance at | Decision | What to do |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| We checked — it fails. | Confirmed as failed | 1 / 5 | Do not use for this task | The condition is not met, or the supplier says it is not. Nothing lifts this except the condition being met. |
| Nobody has confirmed it. | Not confirmed | 2 / 5 | Do not use for this task until confirmed | Record the question, the document that would answer it, who is getting it, and what you will do meanwhile. An unanswered question is not a soft yes. |
| The supplier says so. | Public claim only | 3 / 5 | Use with conditions | Name the binding document you need and when the condition lapses. A higher opinion does not lift a ceiling; a document does. |
| We hold the document. | Confirmed | no limit | Use with conditions | Your own judgement now sets the mark. An AI option is still used with conditions, because its plan’s checks apply. Confirmed means published binding terms or scoped independent evidence for the exact answer — not the firm’s own signed agreement. |
You do not invent the governance number. Your evidence sets the limit and your judgement works inside it. To lift a ceiling, get the answer in writing.
Three decisions, and only these — “until confirmed” is the third one worded for an answer you are still waiting on, not a fourth. A decision belongs to one task and one configuration: reassess when either changes.
Being allowed to use a tool says nothing about how much of the work it may do. That is set separately, by the level. The four levels are defined by who drafts and who checks, and a plan takes its headline level from the first-draft stage.
AI drafts, lawyer checks
The tool writes the first draft inside a template you have already tested. You check it.
Use it for: Procedural or internal work, inside a validated template or playbook, with recorded task-level capability evidence such as a test of the tool at setup. Without that evidence, first drafting starts at Yellow.
Lawyer and AI draft together
You and the tool draft together, with you directing. You check every statement you rely on.
Use it for: Substantive work that leaves the firm. This is the floor for anything a client or another party will read.
Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data
You write the text. The tool writes nothing into the document. Where permitted, it may check, clarify or collect data, and anything it checks or collects is verified.
Use it for: Anything sworn or certified; the stages that need your own judgement, such as weighing authority or deciding what is material; and anything a court rule, a client commitment or firm policy says AI may not write.
No AI at any stage
No AI is involved at any stage. This is always available and is the reference point every tool is compared against.
Use it for: Any task, at any time, and required wherever a court rule, a client commitment or firm policy bars any AI use at all. Choosing it needs no justification.
Any of these moves the task up one level, at most to Red.
A task has seven stages. The level decides what each one requires. A plan takes its headline level from the first-draft stage, and any stage that differs is marked.
| Stage | Green | Yellow | Red | Manual (no AI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frame the task, choose sourcesDecide what you are producing and what you may rely on. Yours at every level. | Lawyer | Lawyer | Lawyer | Lawyer |
| Produce the first draftGet the first version of the document onto the page. This is the stage the headline level is named after. | AI, in a validated template or playbook | AI and lawyer, lawyer directing | Lawyer; AI writes nothing | Lawyer or staff |
| Check high-risk points against the documents (such as dates, figures, key advice)Check each one against the document behind it — a court date read by eye, in case the tool misread it. Required at every level, green included. | Each one | Each one | Each one; any AI check or data verified | Each one |
| Check the rest, including omissionsWork from the documents and the instructions, not only from the draft: an omission leaves nothing behind in the draft to check. | Matter-specific content; template tested at setup; end check | Every statement relied on; every document read | Every statement relied on; every document read | Every statement relied on; every document read |
| Judge law, authority, jurisdiction and materialityRight jurisdiction, current law, the authority actually says it, and it matters to this matter. Your own judgement at every level. | Lawyer | Lawyer | Lawyer | Lawyer |
| Approve the exact outputA named person approves this version, for this use. | Named person | Named person, not the drafter | Named person, not the drafter | Named person |
| Release (send, file, sign)Sending, filing or signing is a separate human act. | Human | Human | Human | Human |
What gets checked follows what the task risks getting wrong and what the professional requirements demand of it — court and conduct rules, law society guidance, the practice area and what the firm has promised the client — more than it follows the product. So the checks concentrate at the high-risk points, where an error would matter most: dates, figures and key advice. They stay proportionate, because a plan so onerous that the tool saves no time defeats its own purpose, and they change as the guidance changes.
Checking the rest is worked from the documents and the instructions, not only from the draft. An omission leaves nothing behind in the draft to check, so reading the draft alone can never find one.
Once you know which options are permitted, they are ranked: first by whether they save work, then by whether the firm can run them. Doing it by hand sits in the same list.
Ranking is never a total. Two options are compared on one question at a time, in that order, so a strong answer on one can never make up for a weak answer on another.
The time each plan actually takes a person is not yet costed here, so the order does not account for it. Record your own times on the first few matters.
Three pages carry one piece of work through all five steps. On each of them the decision and the ranking are computed as the page loads, from the scores above them, so none of the three can show an outcome these rules would not reach; on the two that name real products, the level for every stage is computed as well.
The second and third name real products. Their scores are one assessor’s analytical judgements from a master’s research project, formed from each supplier’s public documents at a stated date, and no product was run for either page. Neither is advice, and neither is a product recommendation.
Any of these lapses the checks and sends the task back to planning.
Definitions taken from court practice notes and statutes are in the glossary, each with its source.
The framework is a way of deciding and a way of recording. It does not certify that a tool is safe, that your work is correct, or that a saving is real. Every judgement on every screen is one a person made and the record says so. The security and privacy frameworks page says whether the Essential Eight, the Privacy Act, ISO 27001, IRAP and the conduct rules bind a private firm, and where they stop.
Browse the practice areasSee the software catalogueA worked exampleOpen work records