Legal firms are welcoming AI into their offices and courtrooms with open arms. But behind the success stories and enthusiasm lies an unignorable security risk. As well as threatening case integrity and data privacy, insecure LLMs can also compromise attorney-client privilege. In this article, we outline the non-negotiables of secure AI for law firms and help you piece together a robust governance framework.
Demand for AI in the legal industry is rapidly rising on all fronts.
Corporate clients are expressing a desire for outside counsel to leverage AI, all in the name of reducing billable hours. Meanwhile, industry leaders are pushing for widespread adoption, with one senior judge asserting that AI is “entering the courtroom to stay”.
If that isn’t enough, governments are throwing their hats into the ring, too. Indeed, the UK government recently selected the legal industry as the first guinea pig of their “AI Growth Labs” initiative — a targeted effort to boost growth, innovation, and efficiency across UK industries.
All of this to say: momentum is building fast.
But underneath the waves of eager excitement lurks a troubling layer of risk.
In this article, we help your law firm understand and mitigate this risk by establishing a robust AI governance architecture.
The legal industry already operates under a unique threat matrix, which AI — if adopted irresponsibly — can worsen.
We’ve enumerated some of these risks on the Claromentis blog before, but they’re worth repeating:
56% of in-house counsel members believe AI has the potential to compromise attorney-client privilege. 22% believe, quite rightly, that it depends on the specific AI tool and its usage.
When lawyers use insecure tools to summarize case details and depositions, any data they enter may be disclosed either inside their firm or, worse, worldwide. This is especially true of public LLMs that use inputted data for training purposes.
The picture doesn’t look much better on the client side, either.
Take the USA vs. Heppner case as an example. In 2025, a defendant entered details of his alleged crime into Claude, which then produced over 30 documents to support his defense strategy. The client was not instructed to do this by his counsel. When FBI agents executed a search warrant and seized the files, privilege was instantly compromised. Though the client tried to contest in court, the judge ruled that AI-generated documents cannot be protected by attorney-client privilege. A chatbot cannot act as a counsel, nor facilitate confidential conversations between client and attorney.
Standard enterprise AI search tools index communications, files, processes, and data across your whole firm. This can be brilliant for speeding-up information retrieval and progressing cases… But only if the AI respects your stringent user permissions.
If AI does not understand or adhere to these permissions, lawyers may be able to access conflict-of-interest data from another partner’s case. This may present itself as a search result link or a snippet of text in an AI overview.
AI is notorious for inventing case law citations and hallucinating quotations. So much so, that the UK high court issued a widespread warning, insisting lawyers stop their misuse of AI.
These hallucinations are a result of using public LLMs that index a swathe of resources — some of which are accurate, some of which aren’t. As standard, lawyers should never rely on uncited summaries from these tools. They must be able to verify the truthfulness of the output, as well as locate and cross-check the primary sources.
Like most industries, there are no AI-specific regulations imposed upon law firms and legal professionals — unless you count broad frameworks, such as the EU AI Act.
That said, legal authorities are already racing to provide guidance where possible.
In the US, the American Bar Association has published plenty of AI 101 articles, clearly explaining acceptable and unacceptable use cases of publicly available AI tools. They emphasize the importance of safeguarding confidential and privileged information, and assert that lawyers are responsible for conducting traditional research when verifying AI claims.
Across the pond, the UK’s Solicitors Regulation Authority sets out its AI expectations in its Code of Conduct for Firms. This highlights the critical importance of strict governance, record keeping, audit trails, risk management, and client outcomes. They’ve also published a detailed “Generative AI Essentials” resource to assist firms.
AI is now a firm part of the justice system, and adoption appears to be inevitable. The question many firms are now asking themselves is: how can we harness AI without succumbing to the risks?
The answer lies in governance.
By building a watertight framework, you can roll out AI safely, securely, and without compromising attorney-client privilege. Here’s how.
First, identify the prime areas where AI could be of use in your firm. For example, you might harness generative AI tools to construct first-draft client emails — providing you omit any identifying information and review the output for clarity and truthfulness. Alternatively, you could use AI search to speed-up information retrieval in your digital workplace and reduce communication bottlenecks.
At this stage, you also need to research the underlying risks, from hallucinations and biased output to breached PII and threatened privilege. Consult with your IT department (and/or external experts) to map these risks.
From the information gleaned in step 1, you can now create a mandatory acceptable use policy. Be explicit about what you will or will not accept in your firm.
This policy must be clear and easily accessible on your digital workplace portal. If possible, enforce compulsory read-accept workflows to capture proof of acknowledgement. You can use this data as evidence during internal and external audits — as well as for your own peace of mind.
Whether you’re adopting ready-made AI tools or building your own in-house, it’s important to assign tool ownership and encourage senior oversight. This not only ensures systems work as expected, but can mitigate the likelihood of breaches, AI bias, and unvetted citations.
Owners should be responsible for monitoring usage, patching software (if built in-house), and identifying legal and security risks on an ongoing basis.
It’s always better to be safe than sorry. If ChatGPT or other commercially available tools feel too risky, don’t use them. Instead, opt for solutions that are designed with your stringent regulatory requirements in mind.
The ideal AI tool should contain:
If you have any additional worries about data privacy or security, we’d advise discussing your concerns with your vendor/s of choice. Ask the following questions:
Despite AI’s widespread use, over half of law firms still don’t provide any AI-specific training to their staff. This increases the possibility of misuse, data breaches, compromised privilege, and shadow AI.
To ensure lawyers use your approved tools safely and confidently, create a series of mandatory, bitesize e-learning courses with tests and certifications built in. You may also choose to complement this training with in-person workshops, “ask me anything” discussion forums, and a library of step-by-step knowledge base articles.
Ultimately, the more support you provide your legal teams, the less room there is for non-compliance.
Rolling out one or two AI projects (or use cases) to begin with can reduce employee overwhelm, create a more controlled testing environment, and help you identify and resolve risks quickly.
Once these pilot projects satisfy your IT and senior management teams, you can then consider expanding your AI initiatives.
AI is a catalyst for change. It promises a future where lawyers can work faster, deliver superior client services, and create impermeable cases that hold strong in court.
But to reach this level of maturity, firms must first identify the risks of AI, build a robust governance framework, and select secure, IT-approved tools.
This is where Claromentis 11 can help.
Native within our comprehensive digital workplace solution, our AI search, assistant, and chatbot tools are designed to meet your strict regulatory requirements. From bulletproof permissions and on-premise control to portal-restricted indexing and thorough audit logs, these tools enhance team efficiency without compromising data privacy or attorney-client privilege.
Best of all, they live alongside your existing operations, documents, and communications. This not only enriches the AI’s intelligence, but also means you only have one platform to secure.
This, amongst many other reasons, is why firms such as Switalskis Solicitors and Sharkawy & Sarhan choose Claromentis as their secure, regulated digital workplace of choice.
To find out more about our AI-enabled solution, or to request a bespoke quote, please book a discussion call with one of our experts.