Ed. note: This is the latest in the article series, Cybersecurity: Tips From the Trenches, by our friends at Sensei Enterprises, a boutique provider of IT, cybersecurity, and digital forensics services.
Artificial intelligence is becoming part of everyday legal practice. Attorneys use it to summarize documents, draft correspondence, conduct research, review contracts, and handle administrative tasks. Vendors are responding with an endless stream of products promising greater efficiency, lower costs, and better results.
Yet amid all the enthusiasm, an important question is being overlooked: Does your law firm have a plan for using AI?
For many firms, the answer is no. AI adoption is happening one attorney, one department, and one subscription at a time. Meanwhile, the policies, training, and security practices needed to support AI are struggling to keep pace.
AI Adoption Is Not the Same as AI Readiness
A significant difference exists between allowing employees to use AI and preparing an organization to use it responsibly.
One attorney may use a chatbot to summarize documents. Another may draft client correspondence. A third may upload confidential information without understanding how it is stored, processed, or retained. Individually, these activities may seem reasonable, but collectively they introduce risks the firm may not have evaluated.
Law firms routinely handle privileged communications, financial records, and sensitive client information. Introducing AI without understanding the technology creates exposure that another cybersecurity product may not necessarily fix.
Before expanding adoption, firms should identify which tools employees use, what information they share, and whether those tools are approved for confidential client data.
The Security Questions Come First
AI vendors emphasize productivity while often burying critical security considerations in technical documentation and contractual terms.
Law firms need answers to fundamental questions. Is client information used to train AI models? How long is uploaded information retained? Who can access it? Can the firm manage permissions and disable accounts when employees leave? What happens to client data when the subscription ends?
These are the same questions firms should ask of cloud storage providers and other technology vendors. The difference is that AI makes it remarkably easy to disclose substantial amounts of sensitive information in seconds.
Copying a privileged memorandum into an unapproved chatbot may seem like an ordinary productivity shortcut, but the confidentiality implications can be significant. Security reviews must become a routine part of AI procurement, not an afterthought once attorneys incorporate a product into their workflows.
Training Matters More Than the Tool
Even sophisticated AI platforms cannot compensate for employees who do not understand their limitations.
Attorneys must recognize that AI-generated information can be inaccurate, incomplete, or fabricated. Polished language does not establish reliability, and attorneys remain responsible for reviewing legal work, regardless of how convincingly the technology presents its conclusions.
Training must go beyond explaining which buttons to click. Employees need guidance on protecting confidential information, verifying citations, recognizing inaccurate output, and knowing when not to use AI.
Firms must also set expectations for human review. AI can assist with drafting and analysis, but it cannot replace professional judgment. A written policy that nobody understands or follows offers little protection.
Measure Results Before Expanding
The business case for AI deserves as much scrutiny as the security case.
A tool that saves an attorney 30 minutes may offer real value. But that benefit vanishes if the resulting work requires extensive corrections, poses confidentiality risks, or yields unreliable information.
Firms should evaluate AI by measuring improvements in accuracy, efficiency, and client service, not by vendor promises. Start with a few appropriate use cases, provide training, measure outcomes, and adjust before expanding access.
Not every task needs AI, and not every AI product deserves a place in the firm’s technology budget.
A Strategy Before a Subscription
Artificial intelligence will continue to change how legal services are delivered. Firms that ignore it risk falling behind, but those that adopt it without adequate planning may create problems far more costly than the time they hoped to save.
Successful adoption requires coordination among firm leadership, attorneys, IT professionals, and those responsible for protecting client information. AI governance is not a one-time exercise. Tools change, risks evolve, and policies must keep pace.
The goal should not be to accumulate AI subscriptions. It should be to use the technology to improve legal services while protecting the clients who depend on the firm.
Before approving the next AI purchase, law firm leaders should ask a simple question: Do we have a strategy for the AI tools we already use?
Michael C. Maschke is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Maschke is an EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE), a Certified Computer Examiner (CCE #744), an AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE), a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH), and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP). He is a frequent speaker on IT, cybersecurity, and digital forensics, and he has co-authored 14 books published by the American Bar Association. He can be reached at mmaschke@senseient.com.
Sharon D. Nelson is the co-founder of and consultant to Sensei Enterprises, Inc. She is a past president of the Virginia State Bar, the Fairfax Bar Association, and the Fairfax Law Foundation. She is a co-author of 18 books published by the ABA. She can be reached at snelson@senseient.com.
John W. Simek is the co-founder of and consultant to Sensei Enterprises, Inc. He holds multiple technical certifications and is a nationally known digital forensics expert. He is a co-author of 18 books published by the American Bar Association. He can be reached at jsimek@senseient.com.
The post Law Firms Need An AI Strategy, Not Another AI Subscription appeared first on Above the Law.
Recent Comments