Law & Legal AI Policy Generator and Template

Legal work combines confidential client information, duties to current and former clients, court and tribunal rules, deadlines, professional judgment, and records that may be discoverable. A product being marketed as an AI assistant does not decide whether a particular matter, input, output, or use is permitted.

Use this template as a decision aid for a law firm or in-house legal function. Identify the responsible lawyer or legal-operations owner, the jurisdictions and tribunals in scope, the matter restrictions that apply, and the approval route for a new tool or use. A legal policy cannot replace the professional judgment or local advice required for a particular engagement.

Do not put client information, matter strategy, personally identifiable information, trade secrets, health or financial information, credentials, or nonpublic work product into an AI service unless the specific tool, account, data, purpose, retention setting, access model, and matter use have been approved. Minimize the prompt and use the firm or client-controlled environment where one is required.

Confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and work-product protection are legal and jurisdiction-specific questions. A label such as “private,” an enterprise plan, encryption, or a vendor promise does not guarantee that a communication or generated material is protected, that a waiver cannot occur, or that an output is work product. Confirm the facts and applicable law with qualified counsel and follow the client’s instructions.

Do not use a shared conversation, consumer account, unapproved plug-in, or connected workspace for a matter merely because it is convenient. Treat prompts, uploaded files, conversation history, generated drafts, logs, feedback, and metadata as potentially sensitive records. Preserve only what the matter and records rules require, and document an approved deletion or retention instruction where appropriate.

Approve tools for a defined use rather than approving a brand in the abstract. Vendor review should cover the model and features actually enabled, terms and permitted uses, data ownership, retention and deletion, security, access controls, subprocessors, locations, confidentiality commitments, audit information, service changes, and incident response. Re-review material changes instead of assuming an earlier approval remains current.

A tool approved for public legal research may not be approved for a draft pleading, a client email, a privileged memo, or a matter with protective-order restrictions. Matter partners, general counsel, client instructions, outside-counsel guidelines, and court orders can impose stricter conditions. The policy should make the narrowest controlling rule easy to find.

Use an approval record that identifies the tool, account or workspace, legal purpose, data classes, permitted matters, prohibited uses, accountable owner, reviewer, expiry or review trigger, and fallback when the service is unavailable. Never place passwords, API keys, access tokens, or confidential credentials in a prompt.

A lawyer remains responsible for work product and advice that relies on AI assistance. Verify legal research against authoritative primary sources, including the current statute, regulation, rule, order, opinion, or official guidance. Read the cited authority and confirm jurisdiction, procedural posture, effective date, amendments, subsequent history, quotations, pinpoint citations, and the proposition for which it is offered. Do not treat a fluent answer, citation, headnote, or database summary as authority without checking it.

Review generated contracts, pleadings, briefs, letters, discovery work, client advice, translations, timelines, coding, and calculations for accuracy, omissions, invented authorities, confidentiality, conflicts, privilege, bias, tone, accessibility, and fitness for the matter. The supervising lawyer must have enough understanding of the tool and enough time and authority to make a meaningful review; “human in the loop” is not a substitute for supervision.

Define when AI assistance must be recorded in the matter file and how a reviewer can reproduce or understand material assistance without unnecessarily preserving sensitive prompts. Follow litigation holds, professional-responsibility duties, client directions, records schedules, and local court requirements. Do not allow an automated score to decide credibility, sanctions, eligibility, settlement authority, or a client’s legal position.

Decide when the engagement, client instruction, applicable professional rule, court order, or material change in the service requires client notice, discussion, or consent. Explain the intended use in plain language, the information involved, material risks, safeguards, alternatives, and who remains responsible. Do not imply that a client has consented merely because an engagement letter is silent or because a tool is common in the market.

Set a billing rule before use. Record actual time and work performed accurately, distinguish human legal judgment from automated assistance, and do not charge a client for invented work, duplicate effort, or an unapproved markup. Follow the engagement, client billing guidelines, fee rules, and any requirement to explain or obtain agreement about technology charges. The policy should identify who reviews invoices and narratives for accuracy.

Report suspected disclosure, hallucinated authority, inaccurate advice, missed deadline, unauthorized matter access, vendor incident, conflict, court-rule concern, or client complaint promptly. Preserve necessary evidence securely, stop the affected use when appropriate, notify the supervising lawyer or incident owner, and follow applicable notice and remediation procedures. Record what was checked and what decision was made without circulating sensitive material unnecessarily.

This template is intentionally not worldwide legal guidance. ABA Formal Opinion 512 and its summary are U.S. ethics guidance grounded in the ABA Model Rules; they are not a substitute for the rules adopted in a particular U.S. jurisdiction, a client’s requirements, or advice about a specific matter. The Solicitors Regulation Authority source is relevant to solicitors and firms it regulates in England and Wales. It is not a general statement of law for every country, regulator, lawyer, or legal profession.

Before adoption, have qualified local reviewers reconcile this draft with professional-conduct rules, confidentiality and data-protection duties, legal-aid or public-sector requirements, engagement letters, client outside-counsel guidelines, discovery and records obligations, and the rules of each court or tribunal in scope. Check current versions and local interpretations; AI guidance and vendor features can change.

A generated document does not establish compliance, preserve privilege, or receive legal review. Adopt only after the responsible lawyers resolve open decisions, test realistic matters, train users, publish approved-tool and reporting information, and schedule review after material changes, incidents, new authorities, or new client requirements.