A law firm generative AI approval workflow should answer a practical question: Is this specific tool suitable for this specific task with this specific information? A tool that may be appropriate for summarizing public materials is not automatically suitable for handling identifiable client documents.
For Florida firms, review should account for confidentiality obligations, vendor practices, technical safeguards, and what staff should do if information is exposed. The Florida Bar advises lawyers to research AI program policies and protect client confidentiality in Opinion 24-1. The workflow below can help turn those considerations into a documented decision. It is a general operational guide, not legal advice.
Approve a use case, not just a product
Start by describing the work the tool will perform. Be specific about what staff want it to do, who will use it, and what information they expect to enter or connect. Examples might include drafting from public sources, summarizing internal administrative material, or assisting with a matter-related task.
Then identify the information involved. A useful initial distinction is between public information, firm-internal information, and confidential or otherwise sensitive client information. Consider whether prompts, uploaded files, connected systems, and generated outputs could expose matter details or personal information.
Do not test a tool with real client information before the firm has reviewed its terms, settings, and safeguards. Use public or appropriately synthetic material during an initial evaluation. If a use case involves sensitive information, treat it as a separate decision that requires closer review rather than assuming a general approval covers it.
Review the vendor’s data practices
Read the vendor’s current privacy terms, product documentation, and applicable contract language. Marketing descriptions alone may not explain what happens to prompts, files, or outputs. Record the answers to questions such as:
- Does the vendor retain prompts, uploaded content, or generated outputs? For how long, and for what purposes?
- Can the vendor use firm or client information to train or improve models? Can that use be disabled, and does the setting apply to all relevant data?
- What happens when the firm deletes content or closes an account? Ask whether copies may remain in backups or other systems.
- Does the vendor share information with subprocessors, and can the firm understand which parties may handle it?
- How does the vendor notify customers of a security incident, and what information will it provide to support the firm’s response?
- What protections and commitments are documented in the contract, including how information is handled and protected?
If the vendor cannot give clear answers, record that as an unresolved risk. Do not assume that a product’s paid tier, private workspace, or “business” label provides a particular privacy protection unless the applicable terms and configuration confirm it.
Check security and access controls
Ask how the tool protects accounts and information. Review the available authentication options, user and administrator permissions, access logs, sharing controls, and settings for file uploads or connected applications. Confirm whether the firm can limit access to approved users and remove access when a person no longer needs it.
Check whether staff can share prompts or outputs outside the firm, and whether administrators can manage that behavior. Consider how the tool fits with existing identity, device, and information-security controls. Verify the settings in the actual account the firm plans to use; do not rely only on a vendor’s general description.
Where work involves information subject to particular contractual, regulatory, or court-related requirements, involve the people responsible for those obligations before approving the use. For example, a firm should not assume that a general-purpose AI tool is suitable for CJIS-related information without reviewing the relevant requirements and the tool’s specific safeguards.
Set human review requirements
AI-generated material should not become legal work product simply because it sounds polished. Set expectations for a qualified person to check the output before it is relied on, shared with a client, or used in a filing or other legal work. The reviewer should verify factual statements against reliable sources, examine any citations, check that the output reflects the matter record, and remove information that should not be included.
Make responsibility clear. The person using the tool should know what they must review and when to raise a concern. The responsible lawyer should retain oversight of legal analysis and client-facing work. Define tasks that are not permitted, such as using an unapproved tool or treating an unchecked output as authoritative.
Create a written approval record
Keep a short record that makes the decision understandable later. It can be a form, checklist, or controlled register. Include:
- The tool, vendor, and intended use case.
- The categories of information allowed and prohibited.
- Vendor answers about retention, model training, deletion, subprocessors, and incident notice.
- Required security settings and the users or roles allowed to use the tool.
- Human review requirements and any tasks that remain prohibited.
- The approving lawyer and the people responsible for technical review and ongoing administration.
- Open questions, the decision made, and circumstances that require another review.
Approval should be conditional when important safeguards are not yet verified. Revisit the record if the vendor changes its terms, the firm changes settings, new features or integrations are enabled, or staff propose a new use case. A tool approval is not permanent permission for every task.
Make incident readiness part of approval
Staff should know how to report a suspected exposure promptly, including accidental uploads, unexpected sharing, or signs that an account may have been accessed improperly. The approval record should identify who receives the report, who can contact the vendor and IT support, and who coordinates the firm’s response.
As appropriate, the response team can restrict or pause access, preserve relevant records, and gather details about the information and people involved. The firm’s responsible decision-makers can then assess next steps. Avoid promising staff that they should investigate on their own or delete material before the response lead has considered what needs to be preserved.
Connect this process to the firm’s existing cyber incident response plan and data breach response steps. A response plan should identify roles and escalation paths; counsel should determine any obligations that depend on the facts.
A workable process for a small firm
A solo or small firm may not have separate legal, security, and technology teams. The roles still need to be explicit, even if one person fills more than one role. The approving lawyer can decide whether a use fits the firm’s professional obligations. A designated person can review vendor terms and settings, with qualified IT support involved when technical questions arise. Staff should know who can approve a tool and where to report a concern.
Keep the review proportionate to the information and task, but do not skip it because the firm is small. A concise, current decision record is more useful than a broad policy that does not say which tools, tasks, or information are allowed.
Frequently asked questions
Can lawyers enter confidential client information into generative AI tools?
There is no blanket approval for every tool or use. First assess the vendor’s data practices, the tool’s settings, the information involved, and the firm’s professional obligations. Do not enter confidential information into an unreviewed tool. The responsible lawyer should decide whether the specific use is appropriate.
How can a firm tell whether a vendor retains prompts or trains models on them?
Review the vendor’s current terms, privacy documentation, product settings, and contract. Ask directly about retention, model training, deletion, backups, and subprocessors. Record the answers and verify that any promised privacy settings are enabled for the firm’s account.
Should a Florida lawyer get client consent before using a third-party AI tool?
Do not assume consent is always required or that consent alone resolves confidentiality concerns. The answer can depend on the tool, information, and intended use. The lawyer should assess the applicable professional obligations and seek qualified ethics or legal guidance when needed.
Who should approve an AI tool in a solo or small law firm?
The responsible lawyer should make the approval decision. Assign someone to review vendor terms and security settings, and involve qualified IT support for technical questions. One person may take on multiple duties, but the decision and reporting path should be clear.
What should the firm do if information may have been exposed?
Staff should promptly report the concern through the firm’s established process. The designated response lead can coordinate with the vendor and IT support, restrict access where appropriate, and preserve relevant records. The firm’s decision-makers should assess the situation and determine next steps.
Conclusion
A repeatable approval workflow helps a law firm make deliberate decisions about AI tools, client information, and incident readiness. Start by documenting one proposed use case, then review the data practices, safeguards, users, and human oversight before permitting use. Zevonix provides IT services for Florida law firms, with a focus on protecting client data and supporting legal compliance. Explore confidentiality and cybersecurity considerations, or get in touch to discuss your firm’s IT needs.