Your attorneys and staff may already be using artificial intelligence. They may use it to summarize information, improve an email, brainstorm questions, create an outline, analyze a spreadsheet, prepare meeting notes, or get a first draft started.
Some employees may use tools provided by the firm. Others may have opened a free AI account on their own. That creates an important issue for law firm leadership. The question is no longer simply: "Should our firm use AI?" A more practical question is: "How do we allow people to benefit from AI without creating unnecessary risk for confidential client and firm information?"
Blocking every AI tool may seem like the safest answer, but it doesn't necessarily address the underlying issue. Employees have access to these tools on their computers and phones, and some may use them without thinking about where the information they enter is going. Law firms need an approach that combines technology, policy, approved tools, and employee education.
Start With the Information, Not the AI Tool
One of the simplest ways to approach AI risk is to stop thinking about AI for a moment. Think about the information. What information does your firm consider sensitive? That could include:
- confidential client information
- privileged communications
- personally identifiable information
- financial information
- contracts and legal documents
- internal firm information
- employee information
- credentials or security information
These concerns aren't unique to AI. Protecting confidential client information from cybersecurity threats already requires law firms to think carefully about where information is stored, shared, accessed, and transmitted. AI simply introduces another destination that needs to be considered.
Now ask a different question: Where is that information permitted to go?
Your firm probably already has expectations about sending sensitive information by email, storing documents, sharing files, and accessing systems remotely. AI introduces another destination.
When an employee pastes information into an AI tool, uploads a document, or connects an AI application to another business system, the firm needs to understand what is happening to that information. The interface may look like a chat box. From the firm's perspective, it is still a question of data handling.
Not Every AI Tool Should Be Treated the Same
"AI" is an extremely broad category. A consumer chatbot accessed through a personal account is not necessarily equivalent to an AI service provided through a business technology environment with different security, privacy, administrative, and data-handling capabilities. That distinction matters.
Rather than creating one rule that says "AI is allowed" or "AI is prohibited," firms should determine which tools are approved for business use and what types of information may be used with them. Employees should not have to make that determination individually every time they encounter a new AI product. Someone at the firm should establish the boundaries.
A Free AI Account Can Create a Business Problem
The barrier to trying AI is extremely low. An attorney doesn't need to submit an IT request or ask the managing partner for a new software purchase. They can open a browser, create an account, and start using a tool within minutes. That's convenient. It also creates the possibility of what is sometimes called shadow IT, where employees adopt technology without the firm's knowledge or management. This is similar to the challenge firms face with secure remote work for attorneys and staff. When employees can easily adopt their own tools or workarounds, clear policies and firm-managed technology become increasingly important.
The problem isn't necessarily that an employee intended to bypass security. They may simply have found a useful tool. But the firm may have no visibility into what information is being entered, how the tool handles that information, what account controls are in place, or whether the application is appropriate for business use. AI makes this existing technology-management problem much easier to create.
"Don't Enter Confidential Information" Is a Start, Not an AI Strategy
A firm might establish a simple policy: Never put confidential client information into AI. That's a useful starting point. But employees may still have questions. Can I summarize an internal document if I remove the client's name? Can I use AI to improve an email? Can I upload a spreadsheet? Can I use the AI features built into software we already have? What about meeting transcripts? Can I use an AI tool to research a topic? Can I use it to draft something if I verify the result myself?
A policy that's too vague leaves employees making individual judgment calls. A policy that's so restrictive that nobody follows it isn't much better. Law firms need practical guidance that reflects how employees actually work.
Approved AI Tools Give the Firm a Better Starting Point
One way to reduce uncertainty is to identify which AI tools employees are permitted to use for firm business. That doesn't mean approving every AI feature available. It means evaluating tools intentionally. Questions might include:
- What happens to information submitted to the service?
- What business or enterprise protections are available?
- How are user accounts managed?
- Can access be removed when an employee leaves?
- What administrative controls are available?
- What information is employees permitted to use with the tool?
- Does the application connect to Microsoft 365 or other firm systems?
- What security and privacy settings need to be configured?
The specific answers will depend on the application. The important part is that the firm asks the questions before employees begin relying on the technology.
Microsoft Copilot Doesn't Eliminate the Need for Governance
For Microsoft-centric law firms, Microsoft Copilot may become part of the AI conversation. The fact that AI capabilities are integrated into familiar business tools can make adoption easier. But integration doesn't mean governance becomes unnecessary.
In fact, AI can make existing information-management issues more important. If employees have access to information they shouldn't have, an AI assistant may make that information easier to discover or use. That makes permissions, identity management, Microsoft 365 configuration, SharePoint organization, and data access relevant to AI readiness. In other words, Microsoft 365 security for law firms can become part of AI readiness before the firm ever enables Copilot or another integrated AI capability.
Before asking only: "What can Copilot do for our attorneys?" firms should also ask: "Is our Microsoft 365 environment ready for employees to use AI across the information they can access?"
AI readiness can therefore begin with work that doesn't look like AI at all. It can begin with making sure the underlying technology environment is properly managed.
AI Results Still Need Human Review
Protecting information isn't the only concern. AI-generated content can be incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading. That means employees need to understand that a polished answer isn't necessarily a correct answer. For a law firm, human review remains essential.
The appropriate level of review will depend on how AI is being used, but attorneys and staff should understand that AI output shouldn't automatically be treated as an authoritative source simply because it sounds confident.
AI can assist work. It doesn't eliminate professional judgment.
Employee Training Should Go Beyond Prompt Writing
A lot of AI training focuses on prompts. How to ask better questions. How to structure instructions. How to produce better output. Those skills can be useful. But for law firms, AI education should also address responsible use. Employees should understand:
- which tools the firm approves
- what information they may and may not enter
- how to recognize sensitive information before submitting it
- why AI-generated answers require review
- how the firm's confidentiality and security expectations apply to AI
- what to do when they're uncertain whether a use is appropriate
The most valuable AI training may not be teaching an employee how to create a sophisticated prompt. It may be teaching them when not to use one.
Give Employees Somewhere to Ask
AI adoption is moving quickly. New features appear inside software employees already use. Someone hears about a new tool from a colleague. An attorney sees a demonstration at a conference. A staff member discovers an application that could save hours of repetitive work.
You want employees to ask: "Can we use this?" That's better than finding out six months later that they already are.
Create a simple path for employees to ask questions about AI tools and use cases. Some requests may be inappropriate. Others may reveal excellent opportunities to improve productivity. Either way, the firm gains visibility.
AI Governance Doesn't Need to Start With a 30-Page Policy
Smaller law firms sometimes hear the term "AI governance" and imagine a large corporate committee producing lengthy policies. It doesn't need to start there. A practical first version can answer a handful of questions: Which AI tools are approved? What information is prohibited from being entered? What business uses are permitted? What level of human review is expected? Who evaluates new AI tools or use cases? Who should employees ask when they're unsure?
Those basic guardrails are considerably better than having no shared expectations at all. They can evolve as the technology and the firm's use of it evolve.
Don't Separate AI From Your Existing Cybersecurity Strategy
AI creates new questions, but it shouldn't become an isolated technology program. The same foundational security principles still matter. Identity. Access. Device security. Microsoft 365 configuration. Data protection. Employee awareness. Vendor management. Offboarding. Monitoring.
If the firm approves an AI service, someone needs to manage the accounts and access. If AI connects to Microsoft 365, permissions matter. If employees access AI from laptops, endpoint security still matters. If sensitive information is involved, data handling matters. The AI strategy should therefore fit inside the firm's broader technology and cybersecurity strategy. As firms build a technology roadmap, AI should be considered alongside Microsoft 365, cybersecurity, lifecycle planning, business applications, recovery, and other technology priorities.
Start With One Useful, Low-Risk Workflow
Law firms don't need to transform every part of the practice with AI at once. In fact, a better approach may be to begin with a limited use case where the firm can learn. For example, AI might help with an internal administrative workflow, meeting notes, brainstorming, summarizing non-confidential material, or drafting routine internal content.
The exact workflow matters less than the process. Choose something useful. Define what information is appropriate. Use an approved tool. Train the employees involved. Review the results. Learn what worked and what didn't. Then decide where to go next.
That's a much more manageable approach than telling the entire firm to "start using AI."
Ask These Questions Before Expanding AI Use
Managing partners don't need to become AI experts. Before expanding AI within the firm, start with these questions:
- Do we know which AI tools our attorneys and staff are already using?
- Have we identified which tools are approved for firm business?
- Do employees know what information they shouldn't enter into AI systems?
- Do we understand how approved AI services handle our information?
- Are Microsoft 365 permissions and security ready for integrated AI capabilities?
- Do employees understand that AI output requires appropriate human review?
- Do we have a process for evaluating new AI tools and use cases?
- Are we training employees on safe use as well as productive use?
If several answers are "we're not sure," that doesn't mean the firm should abandon AI. It means the firm has identified where AI readiness work should begin.
Production Ready IT for Law Firms
At Everleap IT, we believe technology entrusted with confidential client information and critical legal work should be operated, not merely supported. That's the idea behind Production Ready IT for law firms.
For more than 20 years, we've operated production technology environments where security, access, monitoring, resilience, and responsible technology management are everyday operational requirements.
Today, Everleap IT provides managed IT, cybersecurity, and AI enablement services to businesses throughout Southern California's Inland Empire, San Gabriel Valley, and surrounding communities.
For law firms, responsible AI adoption isn't simply about finding the newest tool. It's about combining useful technology with the security, governance, education, and technology management needed to use it responsibly.
Is Your Law Firm Ready to Use AI More Broadly?
You don't need to begin with an ambitious AI strategy. Start by finding out what's already happening. Ask which tools employees are using. Establish basic rules around confidential information. Identify approved tools. Review the security and data considerations. Train employees. Then select practical workflows where AI can provide real value without introducing unnecessary risk.
If you'd like to discuss how AI fits into your firm's existing Microsoft 365, cybersecurity, and technology environment, schedule a Technology Strategy Call with Everleap IT. We'll learn about your firm's technology, how your attorneys and staff are approaching AI, and where practical opportunities or risks may exist.
Not ready for a conversation? Download our IT Buyer's Guide to help evaluate whether your firm's underlying technology is ready to support new tools securely.
