Checklist · Confidentiality & client information
Comparison of a provider's terms on storage, training and subprocessors
Side-by-side comparison of two providers' contracts on where material is stored, whether it is used to train a model, how long it is kept, and which subprocessors can see it.
- Kind
- Checklist. Steps or checks to work through and tick off.
- Where it applies
- New South Wales, Commonwealth
- 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 6 authorities it cites, for New South Wales and Commonwealth.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use when the contracts, or written answers, are already in hand and the practice is choosing which system may see client material. Do not use it to collect answers from a vendor. That questionnaire is a separate document.
Used for these tasks
Each task page says how far AI may help with the task and what the lawyer must review.
How AI may be used
AI may quote the supplied contracts into the comparison table and mark a topic the contract does not mention. The principal decides which provider, if either, may see client material.
AI may
- Extract the clause on each topic from the contract text supplied, with the clause number
- Mark a topic as not stated when the supplied contract has no clause on it
AI must not
- Must not prefer a provider or describe either as safe
- Must not fill a gap with the vendor's website or with a standard clause
- Must not treat a data-processing summary as the contract unless the principal says it is incorporated
The lawyer checks
- Each quoted line is checked against the contract, not against a summary
- Overseas access is classified as disclosure or use on the facts, using the OAIC distinction
- The principal has written the decision, including a decision to use neither provider
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 Confidentiality & client information
- AI confidentiality rules for staff (short form of the firm AI policy)
- Information barrier protocol for one matter
- Waiver of a concurrent conflict of interest (United States)
- Checklist before any file on a matter goes into a tool
- Staff and contractor AI confidentiality undertaking and acknowledgement
- Protocol before using a self-learning generative AI tool (United States)
- AI vendor confidentiality and privilege questions (short form of the vendor due-diligence questionnaire)
- Inventory of systems that can see client material
- Staff undertaking on unapproved generative AI tools (United States)
- Engagement clause: client authority for AI processing of confidential information (rider to the AI engagement clauses)
- Check before using a hypothetical in a generative AI tool (United States)
- AI data incident steps (confidentiality short form of the AI incident response procedure)
- Confidentiality undertaking for an external reviewer or expert
All precedents for Confidentiality & client information · Tasks and AI use in this area