---
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/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A45-T1-R2-US"
practice_area: "AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

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

> 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.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/build-a-legal-risk-table-for-a-client-s-ai-system/united-states  
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 | 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 | United States |
| Applies to | [Build a legal-risk table for a client's AI system](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/build-a-legal-risk-table-for-a-client-s-ai-system.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: 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.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- FTC Act section 5 can also reach a deceptive claim about what the system does. Open 15 U.S.C. § 45 before adding that row.
- State privacy statutes differ. This table does not state them.

## Sources

- [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, Title VII](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [42 U.S.C. § 12112, Discrimination in employment under the ADA](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12112) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [Colorado Senate Bill 26-189 (signed 14 May 2026)](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-189) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [EEOC, What is the EEOC's role in AI? (29 April 2024)](https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/20240429_What%20is%20the%20EEOCs%20role%20in%20AI.pdf) (checked 2026-10-22)

## 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.

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