GenAI Policies for Law Firms
Your law firm needs a generative AI policy, even if that policy is "we do not use generative AI." Firms around the U.S. have gotten into trouble while saying they do not use AI.
We have questionnaires to help you build policies for both a) a full ban on generative AI or b) a policy allowing specific approved tools and use cases with appropriate training under certain guidelines.
If you are interested, email.
A clear policy and proper training may help a law firm when individual attorneys misuse AI. In Wadsworth v. Walmart, the plaintiff’s attorneys were fined and the drafter’s pro hac vice status in Wyoming was revoked, but the law firm as a whole was not fined because it had “trained its employees not to use the AI software in the way [the drafter] used it.”
As a lawyer, you should understand that the absence of a policy is not the same as a prohibition. Both attorneys and their law firms have been penalized by state (e.g., Garner v. Kadince) and federal courts (e.g., In re Marla C. Martin,) when misusing generative AI tools.
In re Marla c. Martin, the law firm stated that, as a firm, it strictly prohibited using AI for legal research and the attorney’s use of ChatGPT was ‘outside of the firm’s research protocol’ but the firm did ‘not identify how it communicated that restriction on AI use to its attorneys and staff prior to this case.'
If You Permit AI Use
- Guidelines on acceptable use with guardrails.
- Lawyers and other employees receive training on appropriate and efficient use of AI tools.
- What to avoid: time-wasters, high-risk of hallucinations, low-quality output.
- Choosing cost-effective tools. Transactional firms have different needs than litigators.
If You Are Anti-AI
The absence of an AI policy is not a ban. If you want a ban, you need to make it explicit.
- Younger employees may be using it already.
- Opting out of AI is not the default option. Opting out is a conscious and difficult decision. Many common software providers are pushing out GenAI features:
- Google Search with AI summaries
- Microsoft Office (Copilot)
Illinois Supreme Court—“The use of AI by litigants, attorneys, judges, judicial clerks, research attorneys, and court staff providing similar support may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI use should not be required in a pleading.”