AI policy for law firms, starting with what is really happening

Many law firms that have an AI policy wrote it in one room. Most AI use in law firms happens somewhere else: a paralegal summarising a long affidavit, a solicitor tightening a letter of demand, a secretary turning a dictation into a file note. A good AI policy for law firms begins with an honest inventory of those moments. That is the gap this page is about, and it is a much smaller job to close once you can see it.

Calibre Forum is a short survey every person in the firm answers on their phone in about eight minutes, from partners to reception. You receive one branded report with an AI readiness assessment for your firm: a scored view across six areas, a register of the tools people really use, and a plain roadmap. It does not review any matter, and it never shows you individual answers.

Where AI shows up in law firms

Summaries of disclosure, briefs and long documents

Worth asking who feeds discovery bundles, expert reports or lengthy contracts into an AI tool to get a first summary, and where the document goes when they do. A summary produced from client material raises different questions from one produced from a public judgment. The point is not to catch anyone out, but to learn which tools are in play so that rules can be set around real habits.

Drafting letters, advices and submissions

Find out whether lawyers use AI to tighten correspondence, outline an advice or produce a first draft of submissions, and what, if anything, they check afterwards. Citations and case references are the specific area to ask about, because they must be verified by someone qualified. Verification habits vary widely between lawyers, so the report is useful for showing where supervision needs to be written down.

Precedents, clause banks and conveyancing packs

Practice management and document assembly systems increasingly include AI features. Ask who has them switched on, what the vendor does with the content, and whether your precedent library has been uploaded anywhere that was never reviewed. Content a firm spent years refining can leave the building through a convenient feature that nobody reviewed. Both are worth checking.

Transcription, file notes and time recording

Client calls, conferences and dictation are often captured by apps that sit outside the practice management system. Find out which recording and transcription tools are used, who consents, and where transcripts are stored. Time entry tools may also read emails and calendars. Recording a conversation raises questions about consent and storage that are easy to overlook when the tool is simply a phone app.

What puts law firms at risk

Confidentiality and legal professional privilege

Solicitors owe clients a duty of confidentiality, and privilege can be affected by careless handling of material. Pasting client matter content into a consumer tool, on a personal account, is the scenario most partners want to rule out. The survey shows whether it is something to rule out or already happening. Partners usually want this answered first, because it shapes every other rule in the policy.

Supervision, verification and court expectations

Courts and regulators in several states have issued guidance or practice notes on generative AI in proceedings, and professional conduct rules still make solicitors responsible for their work. Principals need to know where AI-assisted drafting enters the file, and how supervision of junior staff handles it. A policy that says every output must be verified is only useful if people know who does it and when.

Insurer and client due diligence

Professional indemnity proposal forms and cyber renewals can ask about AI use and controls. Corporate and government clients also add AI and data handling terms to panel arrangements. A controls checklist, and a register of tools, lets the firm answer from evidence. Being able to answer from a register and checklist saves time, and avoids promising controls that are not yet in place.