Checklist · Confidentiality & client information
Check before using a hypothetical in a generative AI tool (United States)
A check that a prompt is a true hypothetical under Rule 1.6 Comment [4]: no reasonable likelihood that the tool, or a later reader of the output, could identify the client or the situation.
- Kind
- Checklist. Steps or checks to work through and tick off.
- 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 3 authorities it cites, for United States.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use before a lawyer puts a "hypothetical" into a tool that is not approved for information relating to a representation. If the check fails, do not input it. Get the tool-specific consent or do the work without the tool.
Used for these tasks
- Build an upload checklist for a matter before any file goes into a tool
- Decide whether client material can go into a tool
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 list names, dates, amounts and unique facts still present in a draft prompt. The lawyer decides whether there is a reasonable likelihood the client or the situation could be recognized.
AI may
- Highlight proper names, docket numbers, exact amounts, addresses and rare facts in the draft prompt
- Show a version with those items replaced by brackets, for the lawyer to edit
AI must not
- Must not decide that the prompt is safe
- Must not send the draft prompt to an external tool in order to anonymize it
- Must not leave a unique combination of facts in the prompt because each fact, alone, is public
The lawyer checks
- The lawyer, not the tool, signs that there is no reasonable likelihood of identification
- The prompt was not run in the external tool before the check
- If the lawyer cannot sign, the path is consent or no input, not a softer hypothetical
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)
- Comparison of a provider's terms on storage, training and subprocessors
- 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