AI Policy Template for Law Firms: What to Include

Why a law firm needs an AI policy

Lawyers are already using AI tools, whether the firm has approved them or not. Without a written policy, individuals decide for themselves what to paste into which tool, and confidentiality, accuracy and supervision duties are left to chance. A clear policy turns that into a set of known rules that everyone can follow and the firm can defend.

This guide sets out a practical structure for an AI policy. It is general information, not legal advice. Professional conduct rules differ by jurisdiction, and your regulator or bar association may have issued its own guidance, so have the final policy reviewed by someone qualified. Our AI governance work supports firms through this process.

Define scope and approved tools

Start by stating what the policy covers: who it applies to (partners, associates, paralegals, staff, contractors) and which kinds of AI it includes, such as chat assistants, drafting tools, research tools, transcription and features built into software you already use.

• Approved list. Name the tools staff may use and for which purposes.
• Prohibited uses. State plainly what is not allowed, for example using unapproved tools with client information.
• Request route. Explain how someone proposes a new tool and who decides.
• Ownership. Assign a named person or committee responsible for keeping the policy current.

Protect client confidentiality

Confidentiality is usually the central risk. Before any tool is approved, understand what happens to the text entered into it.

• Check data handling. Does the vendor store prompts, use them to train models, or share them with third parties? Review the contract terms rather than the marketing page.
• Classify information. Define what may never be entered, what may be entered only in approved tools and what is unrestricted.
• Minimise and anonymise. Where possible, remove names and identifying details before using a tool.
• Consider client consent. Some clients and engagement terms may require notice or consent before AI is used on their matter.

Require verification of every output

AI systems can produce confident sounding text that is wrong, including invented case citations and misstated rules. The professional is always responsible for the work product. A good policy makes verification a requirement, not a suggestion.

• Check every citation. Authorities must be confirmed in a trusted source before they appear in any filing or advice.
• Review for substance. A qualified person must read and take responsibility for anything sent to a client or court.
• No unsupervised reliance. AI output is a draft or a starting point, not a conclusion.
• Record material use. Where it matters, note which tool was used and how the result was checked.

Supervision, training and disclosure

Supervising lawyers remain responsible for the work of those they oversee, including how they use technology. The policy should say how that supervision works in practice and make sure staff understand the rules.

• Training. Run short sessions on approved tools, risks and examples of good and bad use, and repeat them as tools change.
• Escalation. Tell people who to ask when they are unsure, and encourage them to ask before they act.
• Court and client disclosure. Some courts and clients have specific expectations about disclosing AI use. Check the requirements that apply to you.
• Billing. Decide how time saved by AI is reflected in fees, in line with your engagement terms and professional rules.

Plan for incidents and review

Mistakes will happen, so decide in advance what to do. Staff should know that reporting a problem quickly is expected and will be handled constructively.

1. Report. Anyone who enters restricted information into the wrong tool, or finds a serious error, tells the named owner immediately.
2. Contain. Stop use of the tool for that matter and preserve relevant records.
3. Assess. Decide whether notification to the client, insurer or regulator is required, taking legal advice where needed.
4. Learn. Update the policy and training so the same issue is less likely to recur.

Review the policy on a regular schedule and whenever you adopt a new tool, because both the technology and the guidance from regulators change quickly.

Making the policy work in practice

A policy that sits in a shared folder does not change behaviour. The aim is for lawyers and staff to know the rules, find them easily and feel able to ask questions without worrying about being judged. A few practical steps make a large difference.

• Keep it short and readable. A two or three page policy that people actually read beats a long document that nobody opens.
• Give examples. Show what acceptable and unacceptable use looks like for common tasks such as summarising a document, drafting an email or researching a point of law.
• Offer approved alternatives. If you ban a tool, provide a sanctioned one that does the job, otherwise people will quietly work around the ban.
• Involve the whole firm. Partners, associates and support staff all see different risks, and their input improves the rules.
• Check engagement letters. Make sure client terms and the policy do not contradict each other.

Finally, track how the policy is used. Note the questions people ask, the tools they request and any incidents, and bring those observations to each review so the document improves over time.

A simple outline you can adapt

1. Purpose and scope
2. Approved and prohibited tools
3. Confidentiality and data handling
4. Verification and quality control
5. Supervision, training and disclosure
6. Incident reporting
7. Ownership and review dates

Firms that want help turning this into a working programme can read about our approach for law firms and legal services, or start with the AI operations audit to map where AI is already being used. For visibility questions, see how generative engine optimization applies to professional services. More guides are on the NextCTL blog.