Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of everyday legal work, from summarizing documents and drafting correspondence to research, client intake, discovery, and administrative tasks. But for law firms, the question isn’t simply “Can we use AI?” It’s “How can we use AI without exposing confidential client information or creating new cybersecurity risks?”
For a 25–50 employee law firm, a practical AI security program should include at least seven controls: an approved-AI policy, data classification rules, secure business-grade accounts, identity and access controls, human review, employee training, and ongoing monitoring.
The biggest mistake is allowing attorneys and staff to adopt AI individually without a firm-wide technology and security framework.
1. Create an Approved AI Policy Before Employees Choose Their Own Tools
The first problem many firms encounter is sometimes called “shadow AI”: employees start using AI applications without IT approval or firm-wide policies.
An attorney might paste text into an AI assistant to:
- Summarize a document
- Rewrite an email
- Analyze a contract
- Prepare deposition questions
- Research an issue
- Draft correspondence
- Summarize meeting notes
The productivity benefit can be significant.
The security question is: What information was submitted, where did it go, and what happens to it afterward?
Your firm should establish a written policy defining:
- Which AI platforms are approved.
- Which accounts or subscription levels may be used.
- What information employees may enter.
- What information is prohibited.
- Which tasks require attorney review.
- Who approves new AI applications.
- How suspected AI-related security incidents are reported.
The objective isn’t to prohibit AI. It’s to give attorneys clear boundaries so they can use it productively without unnecessarily increasing risk.
2. Never Assume Client Data Is Safe to Enter Into an AI Tool
Before entering client-related information into any AI system, the firm should understand how that provider handles data.
Important questions include:
- Is submitted information retained?
- For how long?
- Can submitted information be used to train models?
- Where is the data stored?
- Who can access it?
- Is information encrypted?
- Are administrative controls available?
- Can the organization control retention?
- Can IT administrators audit usage?
This is particularly important when dealing with information such as:
- Attorney-client communications
- Personally identifiable information
- Financial records
- Medical information
- Litigation strategy
- Contracts
- Intellectual property
- Merger or acquisition information
The firm’s AI policy should establish clear classifications for information that may and may not be submitted to approved AI systems.
3. Use Firm-Managed AI Accounts Instead of Personal Accounts
A law firm should avoid building its AI strategy around employees creating individual consumer accounts.
Where appropriate, use business or enterprise services that provide administrative and security capabilities suitable for your firm’s requirements.
IT administrators should be able to control areas such as:
- User access
- Authentication
- Account provisioning
- Account termination
- Security settings
- Application permissions
- Audit capabilities
This becomes especially important when an employee leaves.
If attorneys have been conducting firm business through individually controlled accounts, determining where client information resides and revoking access can become difficult.
The same principle already applies to email, cloud storage, and Microsoft 365.
AI should be treated as another business technology platform—not an uncontrolled personal productivity tool.
4. Protect AI Accounts With Strong Identity Security
AI introduces another potential entry point into your firm’s information environment.
At minimum, approved systems should use strong authentication controls where supported.
That can include:
- Multi-factor authentication
- Single sign-on
- Conditional Access
- Role-based permissions
- Strong password policies
- Automated account deactivation
Privileged administrative accounts should receive additional protection.
This is especially important for law firms using multiple cloud applications because one compromised identity can potentially provide an attacker access to email, documents, collaboration systems, and other business applications.
5. Require Human Review of AI-Generated Legal Work
AI output should not automatically become client work product.
Generative AI can produce convincing answers that are nevertheless incomplete or incorrect.
Law firms should establish clear review requirements based on risk.
For example:
Lower-risk uses might include:
- Brainstorming
- Creating internal outlines
- Reformatting nonconfidential information
- Drafting internal administrative material
Higher-risk uses might include:
- Legal research
- Court filings
- Contract analysis
- Client advice
- Citations
- Discovery
- Analysis involving confidential client information
Higher-risk work should receive appropriate attorney review before it is relied upon or distributed.
The principle is straightforward:
AI can accelerate work. It should not eliminate professional judgment.
6. Train Attorneys and Staff on AI-Specific Security Risks
Traditional cybersecurity training isn’t enough anymore.
Employees increasingly need to recognize risks specific to AI.
Training should cover issues such as:
- What information can be entered into AI systems
- Which AI applications are approved
- How to verify AI-generated information
- How to identify suspicious AI tools
- How to report accidental disclosure
- How AI-enhanced phishing works
- Deepfake and impersonation risks
- Safe handling of client information
Training should include practical scenarios rather than simply presenting a policy document once per year.
For example:
Scenario: An attorney receives a 40-page confidential agreement and wants AI to summarize it.
Employees should know exactly which approved workflow to use—or whether that document is prohibited from being uploaded at all.
7. Monitor AI as Part of Your Overall Cybersecurity Program
AI governance shouldn’t operate separately from cybersecurity.
It should become part of the firm’s existing IT risk management program.
That means reviewing:
- Approved applications
- User accounts
- Permissions
- Data-sharing settings
- Security logs
- Departing employee access
- Vendor security
- New AI capabilities
The environment is changing too quickly for a policy written once and forgotten.
A practical approach for a 25–50 employee law firm is to review its approved AI tools and policies at least quarterly, as well as whenever a major new AI application or capability is introduced.
A 7-Point AI Security Checklist for Law Firms
Use this quick assessment with your IT provider or internal technology team.
- We maintain a written AI acceptable-use policy.
- Attorneys know what client information can and cannot be entered into AI.
- Firm-approved AI tools are centrally managed where appropriate.
- MFA and strong identity controls protect approved platforms.
- AI-generated legal work receives appropriate human review.
- Employees receive AI-specific security training.
- AI applications and policies are reviewed regularly.
If you can’t confidently check all seven boxes, your firm has an AI governance gap worth addressing.
The Hidden IT Problem: Shadow AI
One of the most important technology issues for law firms in 2026 isn’t whether leadership has officially adopted AI.
It’s whether employees already have.
An attorney may use one AI application for research. A paralegal may use another for summarization. Marketing may use a third for content. Administrative staff may experiment with AI meeting assistants.
Soon, sensitive information may be moving through several third-party platforms that the firm’s IT team doesn’t manage.
This is similar to the “shadow IT” problem firms experienced during the rapid adoption of cloud applications.
The solution isn’t necessarily blocking everything.
A better approach is:
Discover → Evaluate → Approve → Secure → Train → Monitor
That gives employees access to useful technology while creating reasonable controls around how it is used.
What About Microsoft Copilot and Other Legal AI Platforms?
The right AI platform depends on the firm’s existing technology, workflows, information sensitivity, and security requirements.
A firm heavily invested in Microsoft 365 may evaluate Microsoft’s AI capabilities alongside its existing identity, security, and information-governance strategy.
Other firms may need legal-specific AI applications for research, document analysis, discovery, or practice management.
Don’t choose a platform simply because it is popular.
Evaluate at least these six factors:
- Security
- Data handling
- Administrative control
- Integration
- Legal workflow suitability
- Cost and measurable productivity benefit
Your MSP or technology team should participate in that evaluation before firm-wide deployment.
What Should a Law Firm Do If Someone Accidentally Puts Confidential Information Into an Unapproved AI Tool?
Treat it as a potential information-security incident.
The employee should report it immediately rather than attempting to hide the mistake.
Your IT or security team can then determine:
- What information was submitted
- Which service received it
- Which account was used
- Whether the information was retained
- Whether deletion options exist
- Whether credentials need to be changed
- Whether additional investigation or escalation is appropriate
Your firm’s incident-response plan should account for unauthorized cloud and AI data sharing—not just malware and ransomware.
AI Security and Attorney Professional Responsibility
AI adoption isn’t purely a technology question for lawyers.
Attorneys need to consider their professional responsibilities when using these tools, particularly where client information, legal judgment, accuracy, supervision, and communications are involved.
Technology teams shouldn’t attempt to make those ethical determinations for attorneys.
Instead, the firm’s leadership, legal professionals, and IT provider should work together:
Lawyers determine professional and ethical requirements.
IT determines how technology can be configured and managed to support those requirements.
That collaboration is increasingly important as AI becomes embedded in everyday legal applications.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can lawyers use ChatGPT for work?
Potentially, but firms should first establish policies defining approved tools, acceptable information, required security controls, and human review. Whether a particular use is appropriate depends on the information and circumstances involved.
Should attorneys put confidential client information into public AI tools?
Attorneys should not assume that a tool is appropriate for confidential information simply because it is publicly available. The firm’s requirements and the provider’s data-handling practices should be evaluated before client information is submitted.
Do law firms need an AI policy?
For firms where attorneys or employees use generative AI, a written policy provides valuable boundaries around approved applications, confidential information, security, and review.
How often should an AI policy be updated?
A practical approach is to review AI policies and approved applications at least quarterly and whenever the firm introduces a significant new AI technology or workflow.
Who should manage AI inside a law firm?
AI governance should be shared. Firm leadership and attorneys should address business and professional-responsibility requirements, while IT and cybersecurity professionals address technical controls, access, security, monitoring, and vendor risk.
Build an AI Strategy Before Shadow AI Builds One for You
For law firms, the question in 2026 is increasingly not whether AI will be used. It’s whether AI will be used deliberately and securely.
A 25–50 employee law firm doesn’t need a massive AI governance department. It needs clear policies, approved technology, strong security controls, employee education, and regular oversight.
For law firms in Bellevue and the greater Seattle area, an IT assessment can be a useful starting point. Review which AI applications employees are already using, where sensitive information is flowing, how Microsoft 365 and identity security are configured, and which controls should be implemented before expanding AI adoption.
The goal isn’t to slow attorneys down.
It’s to give them a secure framework that allows them to take advantage of AI without unnecessarily putting client information, the firm’s reputation, or business operations at risk.
