Build a legal-risk table for a client's AI system
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- List the decisions the system influences, who is affected, and the statute or bill the lawyer has named for that row. Leave the risk rating blank.
- What the lawyer must review
- You set the rating after you open the instrument. Employment use engages Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and the EEOC's statement that those statutes apply to AI in employment decisions. Disability in employment engages 42 U.S.C. § 12112, including reasonable accommodation unless the employer shows undue hardship. Credit engages 15 U.S.C. § 1691. Colorado SB 26-189 was signed on 14 May 2026; the legislature's summary describes deployer and developer duties from 1 January 2027 for covered automated decision-making technology used in consequential decisions. Confirm the signed act and whether this client is a developer or a deployer. Do not treat the stayed SEC climate-disclosure rules as this system's legal duty. Formal Opinion 512: verify the system description, and do not put personal data into a public or self-learning tool without the Rule 1.6 analysis.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Potential support includes organising research leads. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
- Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
Forms and precedents for this task
| Form or precedent | Kind | AI use | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law firm generative AI use policy (United States) | Policy | AI use 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. |
| How to mark generative AI output in the file (United States) | Checklist | AI use 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) | Memo | AI use 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. |
Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one. All precedents.