Responsible AI Usage Policy for Law Firms

A template internal policy, published by MatterPilot. Last reviewed: 9 July 2026.

This is a template. It is written to be adopted or adapted by a law firm introducing AI tools, and it reflects the controls available in MatterPilot. Adapt the bracketed sections to your firm, and have the final version approved through your firm's normal policy process.

1. Purpose

[Firm name] permits the use of approved artificial intelligence tools to improve productivity in legal and administrative work. AI can draft, summarise, transcribe and organise — but it can also be confidently wrong, and it can leak confidential information if used through the wrong channel. This policy sets out how AI may and may not be used at the firm so that clients get the benefit without the risk.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all partners, fee earners, support staff, consultants and contractors, on firm-managed and personal devices, whenever firm or client information is involved.

3. Approved tools

• Only AI tools approved by [the COLP / IT partner / practice manager] may be used with firm or client information. The current approved list is maintained at [location].
• Approved tools must process data under enterprise terms which prevent the use of firm or client data to train public AI models, and must store data in an agreed jurisdiction.
• MatterPilot is an approved tool: it processes data through Azure-hosted AI services in the UK, does not use client data to train public models, and presents all AI output for human review.

4. Prohibited uses

• Never enter client, matter or otherwise confidential information into public or consumer AI tools (free chatbots, personal AI accounts, AI features of personal apps). These services may retain prompts, use them for training, and store them outside any agreed jurisdiction.
• Never use AI to generate advice that is given to a client without review by a qualified person responsible for the matter.
• Never present AI output as a source of authority: citations, case references and statutory references produced by AI must be verified against the authority itself before use.
• Never use AI tools to make decisions about individuals (clients, staff or applicants) without human involvement.

5. Human review — the golden rule

All AI output is draft material. Whoever uses an AI-generated transcript, note, summary, letter or email is responsible for its contents as if they had written it themselves. Review means reading it, not skimming the first paragraph. Where the firm's tools track review states (as MatterPilot does), work should not be marked reviewed until that review has actually happened.

6. Confidentiality and privilege

• Using an approved tool does not change duties of confidentiality or legal professional privilege — it is a way of meeting them while still getting the benefit of AI.
• Recordings (dictation, meetings, calls) must be made in accordance with the firm's policies on recording and, where required, with the knowledge or consent of participants.
• Access to AI outputs inside the firm follows matter confidentiality: staff should hold the minimum module access they need, using the firm's per-user permission controls.

7. Accuracy and professional duties

AI systems generate plausible text; plausibility is not accuracy. Fee earners remain responsible for the accuracy of documents and advice under their professional obligations. Particular care applies to: figures and dates; names and parties; anything presented as a quotation; and anything that will be filed with a court or sent in the firm's name.

8. Data protection

• Personal data processed through AI tools remains subject to UK GDPR and the firm's privacy notices; approved tools must be covered by a written processing agreement.
• Data subject rights requests involving AI-processed material are handled through the firm's normal DSAR process.
• Suspected personal-data breaches involving an AI tool must be reported immediately under section 10.

9. Transparency

[Firm name] is open about its use of AI: where a client asks, the firm will explain that AI tools assist with transcription, summarisation and drafting, and that all output is reviewed by the people responsible for the matter. Client communications generated with AI assistance are reviewed and sent by a person, in the firm's name, in the normal way.

10. Incidents

Report the following to [the COLP / DPO / practice manager] without delay: confidential information entered into an unapproved tool; AI output sent without review that contained an error; suspected data breaches; or anything that felt wrong. Early reports are treated as good judgement, not misconduct.

11. Training and review

Staff receive an introduction to this policy at induction and when the approved-tools list changes materially. The policy is reviewed [annually] or when the firm adopts a new AI capability, whichever comes first.

---

Template published by MatterPilot (matterpilot.ai) for use by law firms. Firms may adapt it freely for internal use.