Policy · AI decision systems
Law firm generative AI use policy (United States)
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. It follows Formal Opinion 512's supervision duty.
- Kind
- Policy. A policy or procedure for a firm or client.
- Where it applies
- United States
- AI use
- Yellow You and the tool draft together, with you directing. You check every statement you rely on.
- Law stated as at
- 22 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked on 22 October 2026 against the 13 authorities it cites, for United States.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use as the firm's own policy for lawyers and staff. It is not the client consent, not the engagement letter, and not a policy for a client's business deploying its own AI system. A client-facing tool needs the separate consent and the pre-use check in that policy's tools register.
Used for these tasks
- Map automated decisions that affect individuals in the firm's or client's system
- Build a legal-risk table for a client's AI system
- Draft a privacy-impact or algorithmic-impact assessment for the system
Each task page says how far AI may help with the task and what the lawyer must review.
How AI may be used
A tool may adapt the register and the training list from facts the firm has already approved. The managing lawyer decides which tools are permitted and which information may be input.
AI may
- Turn the firm's existing tool list into the register table, without adding a tool
- List staff who have not signed the training acknowledgment
- Compare a proposed use with the information classes in this policy and flag a class the use does not name
AI must not
- Must not add a tool to the permitted list, or change a class of information that may be input
- Must not describe a vendor's terms more favorably than the approval record
- Must not mark the policy as adopted, or send it to a client as a promise, unless the managing lawyer has signed
- Must not weaken the rule that a person reviews output before it is relied on or filed
The lawyer checks
- A named lawyer with managerial authority has adopted the policy and owns the register
- Each permitted tool has an approval record, and self-learning tools are marked so that cross-matter input is blocked unless consent exists
- Billing clauses match the firm's engagement letter and Rule 1.5 as Opinion 512 explains it
- The jurisdiction's adopted rules, and any court AI-disclosure orders the firm's litigators meet, are checked. This policy does not recite those orders
Method: how the Green, Yellow and Red levels are decided. This is guidance for planning, not legal advice.
Read the full text
The full text is available after you log in. It is free. When you log in you can:
- read the whole precedent, with its drafting notes beside it;
- copy it, or download it as a Word file or Markdown;
- add it to your firm’s knowledge base, so colleagues can find it;
- let the AI tools you connect read it from that knowledge base.
The summary, the law it rests on and the AI-use guidance above stay public. Privacy.
More in AI decision systems
- Inventory of automated decisions that affect individuals
- Law firm AI use policy (master firm policy)
- Approved AI tools register (template with field guide)
- Record of a test for different results across groups
- Approval and training record for a generative AI tool (United States)
- AI vendor due-diligence questionnaire for law firms (master version)
- Legal risk table for a client's AI system
- How to mark generative AI output in the file (United States)
- AI incident response procedure for law firms (master procedure for all AI incidents)
- Record that a person reviewed an automated output
- File note of a generative AI confidentiality incident (United States)
- AI decision system impact and fairness assessment (firm or client systems)
- Reassessment when a model, purpose or provider changes
- Privacy policy clause on automated decisions (APP 1.7 to 1.9, from 10 December 2026)
All precedents for AI decision systems · Tasks and AI use in this area