Generative AI has moved from novelty to infrastructure in less than two years. Law firms, corporate legal departments, and business teams are using it to draft, summarize, analyze, and automate. The technology is advancing quickly. Governance is not.
The question is no longer whether organizations will adopt generative AI. The more pressing issue is whether they will formalize how it is used before it becomes embedded in core operations.
In practice, the risk is not experimentation. The risk is informality. When AI tools are introduced without clear internal policies, accountability becomes diffuse. Who reviewed the output? What data was uploaded? Was confidential or privileged information entered into a public system? If the output contains inaccuracies, who owns the decision to rely on it?
These are not theoretical concerns. Courts have already seen filings that included fabricated citations generated by AI tools. Regulators are beginning to evaluate how automated systems are used in decision-making processes. In each instance, responsibility has remained with the human actor, not the technology.
Generative AI is best understood as a force multiplier. It can accelerate contract drafting, streamline internal research, assist with document review, and reduce time spent on repetitive tasks. In legal settings, it can improve efficiency and cost predictability. But it does not eliminate professional judgment. If anything, it increases the importance of it.
Organizations should resist the temptation to treat AI as a productivity overlay. Instead, it should be integrated into existing compliance, confidentiality, and supervision frameworks. A workable policy does not need to be complex. It should define acceptable use, outline review expectations, address client confidentiality, and clarify when disclosure may be appropriate.
The liability landscape is unlikely to shift in favor of “the system generated it” defenses. Traditional standards — negligence, misrepresentation, breach of contract, professional responsibility — will continue to apply to AI-assisted work product. The sophistication of the tool does not dilute the duty of care.
The firms and companies that navigate this transition successfully are not those moving fastest. They are the ones aligning technology adoption with documented oversight and clearly assigned responsibility.
Generative AI is reshaping legal workflows. Whether it strengthens or destabilizes professional practice will depend less on the technology itself and more on how deliberately it is governed.
0 Comments