AI adoption policy

The problem this solves

The usual sequence is that a couple of associates start using a chatbot for first drafts, it works well enough that word spreads, and within a year it is load-bearing on work nobody ever authorised it for. Nothing went wrong, which is precisely what makes it dangerous: the boundary was never set, so there is nothing to notice crossing.

Then the opposite failure. A firm bans everything, the ban is unenforceable, and use goes underground where it cannot be supervised at all. A prohibition that is not followed is worse than a permission that is documented.

It is not a capability gap. It is a governance decision that nobody made on purpose.

What gets produced

Every step on the operating model map is classified into exactly one of three states, and the reasoning is recorded at the moment the call is made rather than reconstructed later when someone is asking uncomfortable questions.

The output is a policy document short enough that people actually read it, with a named owner per classification, explicit elevation criteria, and review triggers tied to external events rather than to a calendar reminder nobody honours.

Why Abstain is the load-bearing one

A policy that only says yes is not a policy, it is an endorsement. Abstain is what makes the other two defensible, because it demonstrates that the firm drew a line deliberately and can say where it is and why. That is the difference between a considered position and a firm that simply had not thought about it yet.

The regulatory ground it is built on

Policy work references ABA Formal Opinion 512, which requires competence in the capabilities and limitations of the tools being used, alongside current state bar guidance. Review triggers are set against external developments, so new guidance forces a re-read rather than sitting unnoticed.

This is operational and process work. It is not legal advice, and it does not replace your own counsel's judgment on professional responsibility questions.