Law firms should make responsibility visible at the level of a client's matter: who permits the information use, who checks the proposed work, and who decides what may leave the firm. An approved assistant and a polished draft leave those decisions to be made.
Make the review handoff specific enough that the next lawyer can see what remains unresolved. A note saying “checked” is less useful than a record showing that the facts were compared with the sources, a proposed concession was removed, and the client still needs to review the letter.
This article examines US law-firm practice through professional guidance. The applicable jurisdiction's rules, client arrangements and any court requirements govern the actual matter. The roles and industries guide connects this question to the work of other professional teams.
Begin with the client's actual instruction
Suppose Alex Morgan, a junior lawyer at a regional firm, is helping a building-services business respond to a disputed repair account. The client, Sam Taylor, has asked for a proposed letter to review before deciding what to send to the contractor. Alex's supervising partner, Claire Bennett, will assess the draft first.
The working materials include the client's account of the dispute, the contractor's correspondence and a record of the proposed repair. They have different purposes. A complaint describes the client's position; a contractor's assertion does not become an agreed fact because it appears in the same packet.
Alex proposes using the firm's approved assistant to organize the issues and prepare a draft. Permission for the particular information and task must be resolved before the real materials enter that service. A rehearsal can use invented correspondence while the responsible people settle that question.
Now imagine the draft says that the client will pay the disputed charge if the contractor completes the repair. That sentence may sound like a practical way forward. Sam has not instructed the firm to offer that concession. The problem is more than whether the words accurately summarize a document. Someone has introduced a proposed decision into a letter the client only asked to review.
The useful output at this stage is a draft with the unsupported offer removed and a clear question for Claire about what the client wants. Claire still needs to assess the client's position and the proposed response before advising Sam what to do next.
Resolve information use separately from output review
The New York City Bar's Formal Opinion 2024-5 addresses confidentiality, security and information separation within firms. Its guidance calls for understanding the relevant service terms and respecting restrictions on who may see a client's information. Those questions continue even where a service does not use inputs for training.
For the proposed repair letter, ask the responsible firm specialists to establish:
- Permitted materials: which parts of this client's file may be used for this task.
- Permitted access: which people and services can receive the inputs and draft.
- Client conditions: what instructions or engagement terms affect the proposed use.
- Unresolved questions: what must be answered before the real matter proceeds through this route.
Keep that decision available to the people doing the work. Alex should not have to infer permission from a colleague's successful demonstration or a subscription receipt. Removing a name from a distinctive dispute also does not demonstrate that the remaining information is suitable to share.
A contrasting account in a public law-firm Reddit discussion illustrates how concrete a firm's route can be. A commenter describing their own firm said it provided an internal AI application and blocked other AI applications on firm devices. This is an unverified account of one firm's arrangement, not evidence that its outputs or information protections were adequate. It does show why a personal account and a firm-provided route should not be treated as interchangeable.
Permission to process information answers one question. It does not answer whether the resulting letter is accurate, appropriate or authorized for release.
Give the supervising lawyer a decision to review
The ABA's Formal Opinion 512, issued July 29, 2024, interprets the Model Rules for generative AI. It describes review as dependent on the task and tool, while retaining the lawyer's responsibility for the work. It also addresses firm policies, supervision and training. This is interpretive guidance, not a single binding rule for every US jurisdiction.
Claire needs more than the newest version of Alex's letter. She needs to know what question it answers, what material supports it, and where Alex found a gap between the client's instruction and the proposed wording.
| Question | Evidence for this letter | Decision still needed |
|---|---|---|
May this material enter the service? | The firm's applicable information-use decision and client conditions | Resolve any uncovered input or purpose before use |
Does the draft reflect the matter? | Source passages, disputed assertions and the removed payment offer | Claire assesses the facts, reasoning and proposed position |
What may happen to the letter next? | Sam's request for a draft to review, with no instruction to send it | Return the reviewed proposal through the agreed client-review route |
A reviewed draft still needs the right instruction
Prepare a letter for Sam to review
This is the current assignment; preserve it with the draft.
Offer payment of the disputed charge
Sam has not instructed this concession. Remove it from the proposed letter.
What may leave the firm?
Claire reviews the substance; the next client decision and recipient remain explicit.
The distinction is useful beyond fabricated citations. In a LinkedIn post about legal judgment, solicitor Janina White argued that genuine authorities and accurate quotations can coexist with a mistaken framing of the client's problem. Her post promotes her writing on legal AI; it is a practitioner's argument rather than an evaluation of firm outcomes.
For Claire, that question is practical: why did a request for a reviewable letter turn into a proposed payment offer? Removing the sentence addresses the visible defect. Understanding how it entered the draft helps her decide whether the rest of the document needs a different review.
The in-house legal and compliance adoption example develops source and proposition checking further. Here, the additional handoff is between outside counsel and its client, including what the client has actually asked the firm to do.
Rehearse the handoff before calling the process established
Use the fictional repair packet to test the proposed working arrangement. Give a colleague the role of Claire and ask them to review what Alex hands over. Do they receive enough information to notice the unsupported concession and keep the letter on the client-review route?
A useful rehearsal has an order:
- State the assignment. Preserve the request for a proposed letter and distinguish it from authority to send an offer.
- Prepare the review packet. Put the draft beside the relevant materials, identified uncertainties and Alex's proposed corrections.
- Resolve the professional questions. Claire examines the substance and records what she accepts, changes or returns for further work.
- Identify the next recipient. Keep the reviewed version and remaining client decision together so nobody treats partner review as the client's instruction to send.
The next conversation can change the instruction. Keep the proposed letter within the review process while that decision remains open.
Ask where the process became unclear. Perhaps Alex handed over only a clean letter, so Claire could not see the proposed concession had been introduced. Perhaps Claire's approval was recorded without specifying whether it concerned wording or external release. Repair the assignment and handoff, then repeat the rehearsal with the change in place.
One successful exercise does not establish the arrangement for every practice area. It gives the firm something more useful than a general assurance that a person will check the output: a particular review it can examine and improve.
Keep the time record tied to work actually performed
The invoice should describe the work that occurred. Keep Alex's preparation, Claire's review and any subsequent client discussion distinguishable in the firm's ordinary time-recording process. Do not convert an estimate of how long a manual draft might have taken into time actually spent.
Opinion 512's fee discussion says hourly charges must reflect actual time, with reasonable fees and appropriate communication about charges. Its treatment of technology expenses depends on the arrangement and type of cost. A flat fee is not automatically reasonable merely because it was agreed, and a software cost is not automatically a separately billable expense.
Have the responsible lawyer assess the applicable fee terms before an invoice goes out. The adoption exercise should preserve the underlying record, rather than invent a new billing category or promise that faster drafting will produce a particular client saving.
Questions about law-firm AI accountability
Does firm approval of an AI tool cover every client matter?
Firm approval is only useful within its actual scope. Check whether the particular information, purpose and client conditions are covered before using real matter materials. Keep the unresolved question with an authorized decision-maker and use approved practice inputs in the meantime. The information-use review separates that permission from checking the eventual draft.
Must a law firm always obtain client consent before using AI?
There is no single worldwide answer covering every task and service. The applicable professional rules, information handling and client arrangements matter. Opinion 512 distinguishes informed-consent questions about information use from other communication duties. Identify the proposed use precisely and have the responsible lawyer resolve the applicable requirement before proceeding; a generic engagement sentence cannot settle every situation.
Does checking citations make an AI-assisted letter ready to send?
Citation checking addresses only part of the work. A supervising lawyer must still assess the proposed letter in the context of the client's matter. In the repair example, a letter could contain genuine sources while proposing an offer the client never instructed. Preserve the separate question of what the client authorized and what should happen to the reviewed draft next.
May a lawyer bill the hours that AI saved?
For hourly work, Opinion 512 says to bill actual time rather than hypothetical hours avoided. Keep preparation, review and client communication accurately recorded, then apply the governing fee arrangement and applicable requirements. Different fee and expense arrangements need their own assessment; a faster first draft does not supply that assessment.
What should a junior lawyer give the supervising partner?
Give the partner the proposed work, the assignment it answers, the supporting material and the unresolved decisions. Identify corrections and the intended next recipient. For Alex's repair letter, Claire needs to see that the payment offer was unsupported and that Sam requested client review before deciding what to send. A clean document alone would hide the most important part of that handoff.
