
For your team
Teams by Function
Module · AI that does not waive privilege
The Legal Team AI Check
Legal work has a property most work does not: the confidentiality of the material is itself a legal protection, and it can be lost by a single careless act. AI is enormously useful to a legal team and enormously good at destroying exactly that protection. This module checks the five things that let your team use AI without giving away its advantages: keeping privilege intact, verifying what the AI says about a contract, catching the citations it invents, holding the confidentiality boundary between matters, and capturing what the team learns so the AI does not have to relearn it every time.
What the five levels look like
Every dimension in this assessment is scored 1 to 5. This is what the levels mean, dimension by dimension. The graded report diagnoses where your own answers land and what to do about it.
Privilege stays intact
- 1Never considered
- 2Assumed fine
- 3Aware, no policy
- 4Policy on privileged data
- 5Vetted tools only
At the low end: If nobody has asked whether your AI tools waive privilege, assume the risk is live and act on it. Pause privileged material going into any tool until you know how it handles and retains inputs. What good looks like: Restricting privileged work to vetted tools with contractual confidentiality is how you keep the protection intact. Re-vet as terms of service change; a provider that did not train on inputs last year may quietly start.
Contract reads are verified
- 1Summary trusted
- 2Skimmed against text
- 3Key clauses checked
- 4Verified against document
- 5Verified and annotated
At the low end: Trusting an AI summary of a contract without checking the text is how a missed carve-out becomes signed. Require a lawyer to verify every AI claim against the actual clause before relying on it. What good looks like: Verifying AI claims against the document itself keeps the contract, not the model, as the authority. Keep the habit strict on the clauses that carry the risk; that is exactly where a confident summary is most dangerous.
Citations are checked
- 1Cited unchecked
- 2Names spot-checked
- 3Checked when filing
- 4Every citation pulled
- 5Pulled and read
At the low end: Using AI-supplied citations without verifying them risks filing authorities that do not exist. Pull and read every case and clause the AI cites at the source before it leaves the team. What good looks like: Pulling and reading every AI citation at the source is the only safe standard, and it is the one courts now expect. Keep it absolute; the one unchecked citation is the one that ends up in the sanctions order.
Matters stay walled
- 1One shared pool
- 2No barriers
- 3Manual separation
- 4Access-scoped by matter
- 5Scoped and audited
At the low end: An AI that pools every matter into one index can surface one client's confidential material inside another's work. Scope the tool's access by matter before that becomes a conflict you have to disclose. What good looks like: Access scoped by matter and audited keeps the information barriers intact when AI enters the workflow. Review the scoping as teams and tools change; a barrier is only as good as the last configuration nobody checked.
Precedent is captured
- 1Nothing captured
- 2In individual heads
- 3Scattered folders
- 4Structured precedent base
- 5Curated and AI-connected
At the low end: Without captured precedent, your AI drafts from generic sources and your team relearns its own positions each time. Start collecting your standard clauses and past positions in one place the AI can draw on. What good looks like: A curated precedent base connected to your AI tools turns a general model into an instrument that reflects your team's judgement. Keep it curated; an unmaintained precedent base teaches the AI last year's positions.