Template Firm AI Policy

Template — Firm AI Use Policy

When to use this

Use this template when:

• A law firm is adopting Louis and needs an internal policy before rolling out access to associates and paralegals.
• An in-house legal team is formalising its AI-governance framework.
• A managing partner or GC asks "what policy should we have in place before our team starts using AI?"
• Bar-association guidance requires a written AI policy as a condition of compliant AI use.

Adapt the template to the firm's jurisdiction, practice areas, and seniority structure. Have a supervising partner or GC review before circulation.

Policy template

[FIRM NAME] — Policy on Use of AI-Assisted Legal Tools

Version: [date] | Approved by: [Managing Partner / GC]

1. Purpose

This policy governs the use of artificial intelligence tools — including Louis (HAQQ Legal AI) and any other AI-assisted legal research, drafting, or review tool — by all lawyers, trainees, paralegals, and support staff at [Firm Name]. It is intended to ensure that AI use is consistent with our professional obligations, client confidentiality duties, and the standards set by applicable bar regulations.

2. Permitted uses

The following uses are permitted, subject to the safeguards in Section 4:

• Legal research support: Using AI to identify potentially relevant statutes, regulations, and case law. All citations must be independently verified before reliance.
• First-draft preparation: Using AI to generate first drafts of contracts, letters, pleadings, or legal memoranda. All AI-generated drafts must be reviewed, edited, and approved by a qualified lawyer before use.
• Document summarisation: Using AI to summarise lengthy documents (contracts, court bundles, due-diligence materials) as an aid to review. The reviewing lawyer remains responsible for the underlying documents.
• Pre-litigation document organisation: Using AI to sort, categorise, and extract key data from document sets. Results must be verified by a lawyer or trained paralegal.
• Translation drafts: Using AI to produce working translations of foreign-language documents. Translation accuracy must be verified by a qualified translator or lawyer with relevant language competency before the translation is relied upon.

3. Prohibited uses

The following uses are prohibited:

• Submitting AI output as final work product without attorney review and sign-off.
• Pasting client-confidential information into any AI tool not approved under the firm's IT and data-governance policy.
• Court filings generated or substantially drafted by AI without: (a) attorney review; (b) disclosure to the court where required by applicable court rules or professional guidelines.
• Establishing attorney-client relationships via AI — no AI tool may be used in a manner that creates the impression that a client is receiving independent legal advice from the AI rather than from a named lawyer.
• Sending privileged or confidential content to any AI tool outside the firm-approved toolset.
• Relying on AI-generated citations without verification — fabricated citations are a disciplinary and malpractice risk.

4. Mandatory safeguards

When using AI tools in legal work, all users must:

1. Verify all citations. Every statute, regulation, and case law reference generated by AI must be independently confirmed against the primary source before use in any work product or court submission.

2. Document AI use in the matter file. A note must be added to the matter file recording: (a) which AI tool was used; (b) for what purpose; (c) the scope of attorney review applied. This supports privilege analysis and professional responsibility documentation.

3. Comply with applicable bar rules. In particular:

   • Duty of competence: a lawyer must have sufficient understanding of AI outputs to exercise independent professional judgment (see [[safety-bar-rule-1-1-competence-ai]]).
   • Duty of confidentiality: client information may only be processed through approved tools with adequate data-protection terms.
   • Supervision: supervising lawyers are responsible for AI outputs produced by lawyers under their supervision, to the same extent as they are responsible for other supervised work.

4. Flag jurisdiction uncertainty. If an AI tool's jurisdiction coverage for a specific matter is unclear, escalate to a supervising lawyer before relying on AI-generated analysis.

5. Approved tools

The following AI tools are approved for use under this policy:

• Louis (HAQQ Legal AI) — approved for drafting, research, review, and summarisation as described above, subject to data-processing terms on file with IT.
• [Add other approved tools as applicable]

All other AI tools are prohibited for matter work without prior written approval from [IT Security / Managing Partner].

6. Confidentiality and data

All AI use must comply with the firm's data-protection and client confidentiality obligations. Do not use personal data of individuals in AI prompts without a lawful basis. For questions on data handling, see [[template-client-data-explainer]].

7. Review

This policy will be reviewed annually or when significant changes to AI tools or bar guidance occur.

Jurisdictional adaptation notes

Related skills

• [[template-client-data-explainer]]
• [[template-vendor-security-questionnaire-responses]]
• [[safety-bar-rule-1-1-competence-ai]]