Record that a client was told an AI tool will do substantial work
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From the retainer and the description of the tool the lawyer supplies, list whether the client has been told that the tool will be used, the types of data it will be given, and how the risks will be managed. Do not send the disclosure.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides whether the contribution is substantial enough that the client must be told, and settles the words.
- Written for / version
- US
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: US
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | From the retainer and the description of the tool the lawyer supplies, list whether the client has been told that the tool will be used, the types of data it will be given, and how the risks will be managed. Do not send the disclosure. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Where feasible, the client is advised if a tool will be used. The more significant the contribution, the more stringent that guidance is.
- Where the tool will do substantial work that would ordinarily be done manually, the client is told that fact, the types of data the system will be given, and how the risks will be managed.
- Disclosure in the retainer or the engagement letter may be sufficient in many cases. The lawyer decides whether it is sufficient here.
- The joint statement says the practice records and discloses to the client, if the client asks, when and how a tool was used and how that use is reflected in costs.
Sources
- Queensland Law Society, Guidance Statement No 37: Artificial intelligence in legal practice · 2026-10-22
- Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner, Statement on the use of artificial intelligence in Australian legal practice · 2026-10-22
These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.