---
title: "Check a plan to enter client confidential information into a publicly available generative system"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information/check-a-plan-to-enter-client-confidential-information-into-a-publicly-av"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A51-MA20261022-7"
practice_area: "Confidentiality & client information"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Check a plan to enter client confidential information into a publicly available generative system

> From the proposed workflow, list each input that would be entered, whether the lawyer has marked it as client confidential information or as material produced under compulsion, and whether the system is publicly…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information/check-a-plan-to-enter-client-confidential-information-into-a-publicly-av  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Confidentiality & client information](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the proposed workflow, list each input that would be entered, whether the lawyer has marked it as client confidential information or as material produced under compulsion, and whether the system is publicly available. Do not enter the client material into the generative system, and do not rewrite it as a prompt. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether rule 9 allows the input. The Law Society of NSW guide to responsible use of artificial intelligence says that putting client confidential information into a publicly available generative system is akin to putting it in the public domain, is likely to breach confidentiality, and may cause the client to lose privilege. The same guide says the Harman undertaking prohibits use or disclosure of information produced under compulsion, other than for the litigation for which it was produced, unless it has been received into evidence, and that such information must not be disclosed when using generative AI. Rule 9.2.1 authority is not assumed. The lawyer records the decision before any input. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: From the proposed workflow, list each input that would be entered, whether the lawyer has marked it as client confidential information or as material produced under compulsion, and whether the system is publicly available. Do not enter the client material into the generative system, and do not rewrite it as a prompt.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether rule 9 allows the input. The Law Society of NSW guide to responsible use of artificial intelligence says that putting client confidential information into a publicly available generative system is akin to putting it in the public domain, is likely to breach confidentiality, and may cause the client to lose privilege. The same guide says the Harman undertaking prohibits use or disclosure of information produced under compulsion, other than for the litigation for which it was produced, unless it has been received into evidence, and that such information must not be disclosed when using generative AI. Rule 9.2.1 authority is not assumed. The lawyer records the decision before any input.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Do not paste the client document into the tool to test the workflow. The inventory uses the lawyer's labels only.
2. Separate a system the practice has engaged, under a contract the lawyer has read, from a publicly available system. The guide's warning is about the public system.
3. Keep material produced under compulsion out of the system unless it is in evidence or the undertaking no longer applies.
4. If the lawyer relies on client authority, the authority is on the file before the input, and it names the system.

## Notes

- 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.

## Sources

- [Law Society of NSW: A solicitor's guide to responsible use of artificial intelligence](https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2026-01/20260109%20LS4816_PSU_GuidetoAI_2026-01-08a%20FINALv2.pdf) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 (WA) rule 9](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/lpulascr2015658/s9.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information/check-a-plan-to-enter-client-confidential-information-into-a-publicly-av/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.*