---
title: "Build a legal-risk table for a client's AI system"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/build-a-legal-risk-table-for-a-client-s-ai-system"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A45-T1-R2"
practice_area: "AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Build a legal-risk table for a client's AI system

> From the system papers, list candidate privacy, consumer, discrimination and sector issues with the documents that support each row.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/build-a-legal-risk-table-for-a-client-s-ai-system  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the system papers, list candidate privacy, consumer, discrimination and sector issues with the documents that support each row. |
| What the lawyer must review | Assess each issue against current law Do not treat a generated 'high risk' label as the advice |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Define the proposed assistance and confirm its permitted scope before using an AI tool.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
2. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
3. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
4. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Law firm generative AI use policy (United States)](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/ai-decision-systems/us-law-firm-generative-ai-use-policy.md) | Policy | Yellow | An internal policy for a US law firm on which generative AI tools may be used, what may be put into them, who must review output, and when the client is told.… |
| [Legal risk table for a client's AI system](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/ai-decision-systems/client-ai-legal-risk-table.md) | Memo | Yellow | Internal table for advice on one client system: the facts taken from the client's papers, the questions the principal still has to answer, and the principal's rating on each risk. |
| [How to mark generative AI output in the file (United States)](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/ai-decision-systems/us-mark-generative-ai-output-in-the-file.md) | Checklist | Yellow | A short rule for storing output of a generative AI tool so a later reader can see that a tool produced it, who reviewed it, and whether it was relied on. |
| [File note of a generative AI confidentiality incident (United States)](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/ai-decision-systems/us-gai-confidentiality-incident-note.md) | Memo | Red | An internal note made the day the firm learns that information relating to a representation may have been put into a tool in breach of the policy, or that a provider reported unauthorized access. |
| [Reassessment when a model, purpose or provider changes](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/ai-decision-systems/model-or-purpose-change-reassessment.md) | Checklist | Yellow | Checklist for when the model, the purpose, the data or the provider of a decision system changes, asking which earlier conclusions have to be made again and by whom. |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/build-a-legal-risk-table-for-a-client-s-ai-system/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*