Approved tools and data
Use only firm-approved systems, permissions and data categories.
Editable policy worksheet
How do I write an AI-use policy for my law firm?
Start with the task, approved information and responsible people. Use this worksheet to record a proposed policy for one AI workflow, then have your counsel adapt it. Completing the fields does not approve a tool, authorize client data or certify legal compliance.
Custom pricing. Scope and price confirmed in writing.
Match education to the work, then test the work
Legal support outsourcing should begin with role fit. Review the proposed specialist’s education, relevant experience, writing and practical work against the task. LL.B., LL.M., J.D. and paralegal training describe different pathways; they do not establish U.S. attorney licensure.
Use a synthetic exercise that requires source checks and handling an unclear answer. Agree the review owner and permissions before a person or tool receives access.
Explore education and vetting ↗How should my firm use this worksheet?
Name one workflow, such as indexing documents or drafting internal status notes. Write what the tool may prepare and what it must never decide. Identify the person checking the draft and the attorney authorized to approve its use.
Use business process details only. Do not enter client names, matter facts, patient information, passwords or access keys. Keep any confidential approval evidence in your firm's approved system and record only an internal reference in your private policy copy.
What should the policy cover?
Record approved tool versions, permitted information, reviewer responsibilities and the point where work must stop. Describe how the team handles missing sources, conflicts, failed integrations and unexpected disclosure. Set a review trigger for changes to the model, connector, permissions or use case.
Include a practical test before release. Your team can use fictional files containing a known error or missing page, then confirm that the draft, exception record and approval step behave as intended. Passing that test is evidence about the tested workflow, not a guarantee about every future output.
How do I include remote staff and outside providers?
Record the assigned operator, relevant training, permitted systems and supervisor. Make the review instructions specific enough for a new team member to follow. Keep responsibility for legal judgment with the attorney.
Model Rule 5.3 addresses nonlawyer supervision. Formal Opinion 08-451 discusses outsourcing, and Opinion 512 addresses generative AI. These sources inform the questions in this worksheet; they do not approve its completed terms for your firm.
ABA Model Rule 5.3ABA Formal Opinion 08-451ABA Formal Opinion 512
What happens before the policy takes effect?
Give counsel the completed worksheet, proposed architecture, contracts and test results. Resolve open items, record the version and approval date, and tell staff where the approved instructions are kept. An empty field is an open decision.
This is a working template, not an engagement letter, client-consent form or legal opinion. Replacing a placeholder with text does not establish the truth of that statement. Confirm it against the actual arrangement.
Adapt your AI-use policy
Use roles and data categories only. Do not enter client names, case facts or confidential records. Entries stay in this page’s memory and are lost when you leave or reload. Download a copy to retain your draft.
Identify the business policy owner, version and effective date after approval. Do not include client or matter information.
Describe one assignment, its business purpose and the draft the system may produce.
List exact versions or services, account ownership, hosting region and connected systems. Confirm terms, licenses and access.
Use data categories, not real examples. Document restrictions on confidential, privileged or health information.
Record who evaluates data flow, provider access, retention, training use, contracts and any required disclosures or consent.
Match the operator's qualifications and instruction to the task. Name roles in the public worksheet; use specific assignments in the firm's private copy.
Define the actual source a person must check, what evidence is retained and who decides whether the draft is ready.
Define blocked conditions and the escalation path, including conflicting facts, absent sources or failed integrations.
State who controls legal decisions and communications. Do not treat a software status as authorization.
Specify synthetic tests, acceptance criteria and triggers for re-review. Do not insert an unsupported accuracy target.
Set operational contacts and approved retention rules. Counsel determines legal notice duties and record restrictions.
Separate software/API/hosting, build and human support costs. Record outstanding approvals and the next review date.
A person remains accountable
Six controls for every proposed AI workflow
Drafts with named reviewers
Label every AI output as a draft and route it to a named human reviewer.
Traceable extracted facts
Keep a source link or document/page reference for every extracted fact.
Visible exceptions
Log missing evidence, conflicting inputs and failed steps. Never silently fill gaps.
Attorney approval before sending
AI never makes legal decisions or gives advice. Nothing is sent to a client, court or opposing party without attorney approval.
SOC 2 Type II scope review
Remote Legal Team LLC states SOC 2 Type II security. Confirm report scope, period and covered services during diligence; it does not certify every proposed tool or make a workflow automatically compliant.
Questions about this workflow
Does this worksheet authorize entering client information into an AI tool?
No. Tool approval, information approval and any required client authorization must be resolved by your firm before use. This worksheet only records proposed decisions.
Can I use the same policy for every practice area?
Use a shared policy framework, then record task-specific data, reviewers and restrictions. Your counsel should decide what must differ by practice, client or jurisdiction.
Does the worksheet replace an AI Workflow Audit?
No. It helps organize the questions and responsibilities. A workflow audit can review the proposed process, tool arrangement and implementation scope with your team.
Sources and product references
Checked October 13, 2026. Product access depends on the current account, plan and configuration.
Informational template, not legal advice. Have your counsel adapt and approve the policy for your firm, controlling rules and actual systems.
Related legal support
LET’S PLAN YOUR ORGANIZATION’S SUPPORT
Discuss your AI workflow
Describe the workflow, approved systems, expected draft output and review owner. We will confirm the scope and custom pricing in writing before work starts.
We’ll discuss relevant education and experience, workload, coverage, commercial terms and your review process.
Tell us about your organization
Describe the workflow, expected outputs, review owner and preferred timing. Business requirements only; do not include confidential documents or personal data. Required fields are marked *. Read our Privacy Policy and Website Terms.
Choose a time to talk
Discuss how do i write a law firm ai-use policy?, your team’s workload and the next steps for your organization.