Microsoft Copilot for Legal Teams: Document Review and Contract Analysis

Legal professionals face a paradox when evaluating Microsoft 365 Copilot: AI promises to reduce the document review burden that consumes 40-60% of associate attorney time, but deploying AI in legal workflows raises ethical obligations under Rules of Professional Conduct, risks waiving attorney-client privilege, and introduces accuracy concerns that could constitute professional negligence.

This isn't about whether Copilot can draft a contract clause faster than an attorney typing manually. It's about whether your deployment architecture protects privileged communications from inadvertent disclosure, satisfies Rule 1.6 confidentiality requirements, implements competent supervision of AI-generated work product (Rule 1.1 competence and Rule 5.1 supervisory responsibility), and prevents the "hallucination" problem where AI generates plausible but incorrect legal analysis.

Law firms and corporate legal departments deploying Copilot discover that technical capabilities don't align with professional responsibility frameworks. An associate asking Copilot to "summarize key terms in this acquisition agreement" triggers ethical obligations: has the attorney verified Copilot's accuracy (duty of competence)? Does the Copilot audit trail preserve work product protection (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26)? Could Copilot's access to client files in Microsoft 365 create a waiver of privilege if Microsoft is subpoenaed (ABA Formal Opinion 477R on cloud computing)?

The legal CIO's challenge isn't implementing Copilot—it's implementing it in a manner that satisfies professional ethics, protects privileged information, and doesn't create malpractice liability.

The Attorney-Client Privilege Challenge

Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between attorneys and clients made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. In Copilot deployments, the privilege question is: does using AI to review client communications create a waiver or disclosure that destroys privilege?

Does Copilot Access Waive Privilege?

Legal framework: Privilege is waived if confidential communications are disclosed to third parties. However, disclosure to agents of the attorney who assist in providing legal services doesn't waive privilege (common interest doctrine, agency exception).

The Copilot question: Is Microsoft, as the provider of Copilot, a "third party" whose access to privileged communications waives privilege? Or is Microsoft an "agent" of the law firm/legal department assisting in service delivery?

ABA Formal Opinion 477R (Revised 2017): Law firms may use cloud computing services (including AI tools) without waiving privilege if the firm takes reasonable steps to protect confidentiality. Factors considered:

1. Vendor's security measures
2. Vendor's access to client data
3. Contractual restrictions on vendor use of data
4. Encryption during transmission and storage

Microsoft's position: Microsoft 365 Copilot operates under Business Terms that prohibit Microsoft from accessing customer data for purposes other than service delivery. Microsoft doesn't train AI models on customer prompts or responses (as of 2024 Commercial Data Protection update). This aligns with ABA 477R's "reasonable steps" standard.

Conservative practice: Despite Microsoft's contractual commitments, some law firms and highly regulated legal departments treat Copilot access as a disclosure risk. They implement additional controls:

• Sensitivity labels that block Copilot from accessing privileged documents
• Separate Microsoft 365 tenants for privileged communications (no Copilot enabled)
• Client consent requirements before using AI on client matters
• Enhanced audit logging to demonstrate confidentiality safeguards

Risk assessment: The privilege waiver risk is low but non-zero. No published case law addresses whether AI provider access waives privilege. Until appellate courts clarify, legal organizations should document their confidentiality safeguards and obtain ethics counsel guidance.

Protecting Privileged Communications with Sensitivity Labels

Technical solution: Microsoft Purview sensitivity labels can block Copilot from accessing documents marked as privileged.

Implementation:

# Create sensitivity label for attorney-client privileged communications
New-Label -Name "Attorney-Client Privileged" `
    -Comment "Confidential communications protected by attorney-client privilege" `
    -EncryptionEnabled $true `
    -EncryptionProtectionType "Template" `
    -EncryptionRightsDefinitions @{
        "Attorneys" = "View,Edit,Save,Print"
        "Paralegals" = "View"
        "Support Staff" = "None"
    } `
    -AdvancedSettings @{
        copilotAccess = "Blocked"
        privilegeType = "AttorneyClient"
        privilegeAssertion = "This document contains confidential attorney-client communications"
    }

Workflow integration:

1. Attorneys apply "Attorney-Client Privileged" label to client communications, legal memos, strategy documents
2. Label enforces encryption and access restrictions
3. Copilot queries cannot retrieve labeled documents (blocked at API level)
4. Audit logs capture attempted access for privilege log purposes

Privilege log compliance: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(5) requires parties to describe privileged documents withheld from production. Copilot audit logs provide evidence that privileged documents were segregated and protected (demonstrating reasonable steps to maintain privilege).

Ethical Considerations: Rules of Professional Conduct

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted in various forms by all U.S. state bars) impose ethical obligations on attorneys using AI tools like Copilot.

Rule 1.1: Competence

Requirement: "A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation."

Comment 8 (added 2012): "To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology."

Copilot implication: Attorneys using AI tools must understand how they work, their limitations (hallucination risk), and when human review is required. Simply accepting Copilot's output without verification could violate the duty of competence.

Case example (hypothetical): Associate attorney uses Copilot to draft memorandum analyzing a contract dispute. Copilot cites a case that appears on point. Attorney doesn't verify the citation—case doesn't exist (hallucination). Memo is submitted to partner, then to client, influencing litigation strategy. When opposing counsel challenges the non-existent case, client suffers reputational harm and potential adverse judgment. That's likely a competence violation.

Best practice: Treat Copilot as a junior associate—every output requires senior review. Document verification steps (checked citations, confirmed statutory references, validated contract clause accuracy). Train attorneys on AI limitations and supervise junior staff using Copilot.

Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information

Requirement: "A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by [specific exceptions]."

Comment 18: "Paragraph (c) requires a lawyer to act competently to safeguard information relating to the representation of a client against unauthorized access by third parties and against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other persons who are participating in the representation of the client or who are subject to the lawyer's supervision."

Copilot implication: Using Copilot with client information requires "competent safeguards" against unauthorized disclosure. This means:

• Encryption of client data (Microsoft 365 provides this by default)
• Access controls limiting who can query Copilot on client matters
• DLP policies preventing accidental external sharing of Copilot responses
• Audit trails demonstrating confidentiality protections
• Vendor due diligence confirming Microsoft's security practices

Technical controls for Rule 1.6 compliance:

# DLP policy to prevent external sharing of client confidential information
New-DlpComplianceRule -Name "Block External Sharing of Client Files" `
    -ContentContainsSensitiveInformation @{
        Name = "Attorney-Client Privileged"
        MinCount = 1
    } `
    -BlockAccess $true `
    -BlockAccessScope "All" `
    -ExceptIfRecipientDomainIs "lawfirm.com"

# Conditional access policy requiring MFA for Copilot access to client data
New-AzureADMSConditionalAccessPolicy -DisplayName "Client Data Copilot Access" `
    -State "Enabled" `
    -Conditions @{
        Applications = @{ IncludeApplications = "Microsoft 365 Copilot" }
        Users = @{ IncludeGroups = "Attorneys", "Paralegals" }
    } `
    -GrantControls @{
        Operator = "AND"
        BuiltInControls = @("mfa", "compliantDevice")
    }

State bar guidance: Several state bars have issued ethics opinions on cloud computing and AI (e.g., California Formal Opinion 2023-200, New York State Bar Association Opinion 842). General consensus: AI use is permissible if attorneys implement reasonable confidentiality safeguards and supervise AI-generated work.

Rule 5.1 and 5.3: Supervisory Responsibility

Rule 5.1: "A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct."

Rule 5.3: "With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer: (a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer."

Copilot implication: Law firm partners and legal department managers have supervisory responsibility to ensure attorneys and staff use Copilot ethically. This requires:

• Written policies on AI use (what tasks are appropriate, verification requirements, confidentiality safeguards)
• Training for attorneys and staff on AI limitations and ethical obligations
• Monitoring and auditing of Copilot usage (review audit logs for risky behavior)
• Disciplinary measures for policy violations

Law firm policy example:

AI Use Policy for [Law Firm Name]

1. Permitted Uses: Copilot may be used for legal research, contract drafting, document review,
   and administrative tasks. All AI-generated content must be reviewed by a licensed attorney
   before client delivery.

2. Prohibited Uses: Copilot may not be used as sole basis for legal advice without attorney
   verification. Do not input client-identifying information into non-firm systems without
   client consent.

3. Confidentiality: Apply "Attorney-Client Privileged" sensitivity labels to client
   communications. Use Copilot only on firm-managed devices with encryption enabled.

4. Supervision: Partners are responsible for supervising associates' use of AI tools.
   Review AI-generated work product for accuracy and compliance with ethical obligations.

5. Verification Requirements: Verify all case citations, statutory references, and factual
   assertions in AI-generated content. Document verification steps in matter file.

6. Client Communication: If client requests information about AI use on their matter,
   provide transparency about what tools were used and what verification occurred.

Document Review and eDiscovery

Copilot's highest-value legal application is accelerating document review in litigation and investigations. The technical challenge is integrating Copilot with eDiscovery platforms while maintaining work product protection.

Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) Integration

Use case: Law firm conducts document review for class action litigation with 2 million documents. Traditional linear review would take 10,000+ attorney hours at $200-400/hour ($2-4M cost). Technology-assisted review (TAR) reduces review set to 500K documents. Copilot further accelerates by summarizing documents and flagging key issues.

Technical architecture:

1. Documents loaded into eDiscovery platform (Relativity, Disco, Everlaw, Microsoft Purview eDiscovery)
2. TAR workflow identifies potentially responsive documents (machine learning classification)
3. Attorneys review TAR-identified documents using Copilot assistance:
   • Copilot summarizes 50-page deposition transcripts into 1-page key points
   • Copilot identifies responsive emails in multi-thread conversations
   • Copilot flags documents mentioning key custodians, date ranges, or topics
4. Attorney makes final responsiveness determination (human in the loop)
5. Privileged documents are segregated and logged

Work product protection: Attorney mental impressions, case strategy, and document selection decisions are protected by work product doctrine (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(3)). Copilot interactions could reveal attorney thought process if not properly protected.

Technical controls:

• Copilot queries conducted within Purview eDiscovery (subject to work product protection)
• Audit logs maintained separately from production set (not discoverable)
• Sensitivity labels applied to attorney review notes and Copilot summaries (work product privileged)
• Review platform access restricted to litigation team and retained experts

Case law considerations: Courts have addressed discoverability of TAR protocols and seed sets (e.g., Rio Tinto v. Vale, D. Utah 2015). Generally, TAR methodology is discoverable but attorney selection decisions are not. Copilot usage should be documented in TAR protocol but specific queries and attorney analysis protected as work product.

Contract Review and Due Diligence

Use case: Corporate acquisition requires review of 5,000 contracts (customer agreements, vendor contracts, leases, employment agreements) to identify change-of-control provisions, termination rights, and liability exposure. Traditional review takes 3 attorneys 6 weeks.

Copilot-accelerated workflow:

1. Contracts uploaded to SharePoint document library
2. Copilot analyzes contracts for specific clauses:
   • "Identify change-of-control provisions and summarize notice requirements"
   • "Flag contracts with automatic termination on acquisition"
   • "Extract indemnification caps and survival periods"
3. Copilot generates due diligence summary spreadsheet
4. Attorney reviews summaries and validates against source contracts (verification)
5. Flagged issues reported to deal team

Accuracy verification: Copilot hallucination risk is significant in contract review. AI may generate plausible but incorrect clause summaries. Best practice: Sample 10-20% of Copilot summaries and compare to source contracts. If accuracy is below 95%, increase human review percentage.

Implementation example:

Prompt: "Review the attached customer agreement and extract the following:
1. Contract term and renewal provisions
2. Termination rights (either party)
3. Change-of-control provisions
4. Limitation of liability clause
5. Governing law and venue
6. Any unusual or one-sided terms favoring customer

Provide results in table format with page references."

Copilot Output:
| Provision | Summary | Page |
|-----------|---------|------|
| Contract Term | 3-year initial term, auto-renews for 1-year periods unless 90-day notice | 2 |
| Termination - Convenience | Customer may terminate on 30 days' notice; Vendor requires 180 days | 5 |
| Change of Control | Vendor acquisition triggers customer termination right within 60 days | 8 |
| Liability Cap | $500K aggregate cap, excludes IP indemnity | 12 |
| Governing Law | Delaware law, exclusive venue in Delaware Chancery Court | 15 |
| Unusual Terms | Customer has audit rights with 5 days' notice (typically 10-15 days) | 9 |

Attorney Verification: [Attorney spot-checks pages 2, 5, 8 for accuracy—confirms Copilot
summary is correct. Notes that liability cap is commercially reasonable but change-of-control
provision is adverse and should be flagged for deal team.]

Ethical compliance: ABA Rule 1.1 (competence) requires verification. Document review notes should reflect: "AI-generated summary reviewed and verified against source contract on [date] by [attorney]."

Legal Research and Memo Drafting

Use case: Client asks whether non-compete agreement is enforceable under California law. Associate uses Copilot to draft research memo.

Copilot-assisted research workflow:

1. Associate prompts Copilot: "Summarize California law on enforceability of non-compete agreements for software engineers"
2. Copilot generates summary citing Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) and California Business and Professions Code Section 16600
3. Associate verifies case citations using Westlaw/LexisNexis (confirms cases exist and are correctly cited)
4. Associate uses Copilot to draft memo structure and analysis
5. Associate edits for accuracy, adds jurisdiction-specific nuances, finalizes memo
6. Partner reviews before client delivery

Hallucination risk: Legal AI systems are known to generate non-existent case citations (e.g., ChatGPT's infamous Mata v. Avianca fabricated cases). Critical requirement: Verify every case citation, statute, and regulation using authoritative legal research platforms.

Westlaw/LexisNexis integration: Legal research platforms are developing AI features with verified citation databases (e.g., Westlaw Precision, Lexis+ AI). These tools reduce hallucination risk by grounding AI responses in authoritative case law. Copilot, as a general-purpose AI, lacks this verification layer—use Copilot for drafting and summarization, not for authoritative legal citations.

Accuracy and Hallucination Risks

The hallucination problem: Large language models like GPT-4 (underlying Copilot) generate statistically probable text, not factually verified information. In legal contexts, this manifests as:

• Non-existent case citations
• Incorrect statutory references
• Plausible but inaccurate contract clause summaries
• Misleading legal analysis

Documented incidents:

• Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023): Attorneys submitted brief with ChatGPT-generated fake case citations, resulting in sanctions
• Park v. Kim (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023): Attorney relied on AI-generated legal research without verification, filed motion citing non-existent cases

Professional liability implications: Submitting AI-generated content with fabricated citations likely constitutes:

• Rule 1.1 violation (competence—failure to verify)
• Rule 3.3 violation (candor to tribunal—misrepresenting authority)
• Potential malpractice (negligence in legal research)
• Sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 (frivolous filings)

Risk mitigation strategies:

1. Citation verification: Every case, statute, and regulation cited by Copilot must be verified using Westlaw, LexisNexis, or official reporters. No exceptions.

2. Human review requirements: Treat Copilot output as first draft requiring attorney review. Document review steps in matter file.

3. Training requirements: Attorneys using Copilot must complete training on AI limitations, hallucination risks, and verification obligations.

4. Quality assurance sampling: Randomly sample 10% of Copilot-assisted work product and audit for accuracy. Track error rates and adjust supervision accordingly.

5. Client communication: If client questions AI use, provide transparency: "We use AI tools to improve efficiency, but all AI-generated content is reviewed and verified by licensed attorneys before delivery."

Documentation example:

Matter: [Client Name] - Contract Review
Task: Due diligence review of customer agreements
AI Tool Used: Microsoft 365 Copilot
Date: January 24, 2026
Attorney: John Smith, Esq.

AI-Assisted Tasks:
- Copilot summarized 150 customer agreements, identifying change-of-control provisions
- Copilot generated due diligence spreadsheet with contract terms

Verification Steps:
- Spot-checked 20 contracts (13% sample rate) to validate Copilot summaries
- Verified accuracy rate: 95% (19 of 20 summaries accurate)
- One error identified (Copilot missed renewal term in Contract #47)—corrected manually
- All flagged provisions reviewed against source contracts before reporting to client

Attorney Review: [Signature] John Smith, Esq. - Date: January 24, 2026

Law Firm vs. In-House Counsel Considerations

Law firms and corporate legal departments face different operational and ethical considerations when deploying Copilot.

Law Firm Deployment Considerations

Client confidentiality across matters: Law firms handle multiple clients, often with conflicting interests. Copilot must not expose Client A's information when attorney is working on Client B's matter.

Technical solution: Matter-based information barriers using Microsoft Purview.

Implementation:

# Create organizational segments per client matter
New-OrganizationSegment -Name "Matter_ClientA_Acquisition" `
    -UserGroupFilter "MatterCode -eq 'CA-2026-001'"

New-OrganizationSegment -Name "Matter_ClientB_Litigation" `
    -UserGroupFilter "MatterCode -eq 'CB-2026-045'"

# Prevent cross-matter data access
New-InformationBarrierPolicy -Name "Client Confidentiality Barriers" `
    -AssignedSegment "Matter_ClientA_Acquisition" `
    -SegmentsBlocked "Matter_ClientB_Litigation" `
    -State Active

Result: Attorney working on Client A acquisition cannot use Copilot to access Client B litigation documents, preventing conflicts and inadvertent disclosure.

Billing considerations: Law firms bill by the hour. If Copilot reduces research time from 10 hours to 2 hours, does the firm bill for 2 hours (actual time) or 10 hours (traditional time)? Ethical obligation (Rule 1.5, reasonable fees) requires billing for actual time, adjusted for value delivered. Some firms are moving to value-based billing that rewards efficiency.

Client consent: Some law firms obtain client consent before using AI on client matters, particularly for highly sensitive matters (M&A, trade secrets, government investigations). Consent language:

"Law Firm may use artificial intelligence tools, including Microsoft 365 Copilot, to improve efficiency in legal research, document review, and drafting. All AI-generated content is reviewed and verified by licensed attorneys before delivery. AI tools do not have access to client information outside the scope of representation and are subject to confidentiality safeguards consistent with our professional obligations."

In-House Counsel Deployment Considerations

Enterprise integration: Corporate legal departments operate within broader enterprise IT infrastructure, sharing Microsoft 365 tenants with finance, HR, and operations. Copilot deployment must prevent legal department data exposure to non-legal business units.

Technical solution: Separate SharePoint sites for legal department with restricted permissions, sensitivity labels for legal confidential information, information barriers between legal and business departments.

Privilege considerations: In-house counsel communications are only privileged when providing legal advice (not business advice). Copilot queries could blur the line between legal and business functions, risking privilege waiver.

Best practice: Apply "Attorney-Client Privileged" sensitivity labels only to communications clearly seeking legal advice. Business-related communications (contract negotiations, vendor management, compliance operations) are not privileged and should not be labeled as such.

Business partnership: In-house legal departments serve as strategic business partners, not just risk mitigators. Copilot use cases extend beyond litigation and contracts to include regulatory compliance monitoring, policy drafting, and cross-functional project support. Enable broader use cases while maintaining appropriate confidentiality controls.

Deployment Roadmap for Legal Organizations

Phase 1: Ethics and privilege assessment (Weeks 1-2)

• Consult state bar ethics counsel on AI use obligations
• Review ABA Model Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1, 5.3 applicability
• Assess attorney-client privilege implications (consider ABA Opinion 477R)
• Draft AI use policy for attorney approval

Phase 2: Technical controls deployment (Weeks 3-4)

• Configure sensitivity labels for attorney-client privileged communications
• Deploy DLP policies to prevent external sharing of client information
• Enable Microsoft Purview Premium Audit with extended retention
• Implement information barriers for client matter confidentiality

Phase 3: Pilot deployment (Weeks 5-8)

• Select pilot group (10-15 attorneys across practice areas)
• Train on AI limitations, verification requirements, ethical obligations
• Monitor audit logs for risky usage patterns
• Conduct quality assurance review of AI-generated work product

Phase 4: Use case expansion (Weeks 9-12)

• Enable document review workflows (eDiscovery integration)
• Deploy contract analysis templates
• Configure legal research and memo drafting guidelines
• Integrate with matter management systems for billing tracking

Phase 5: Production rollout (Weeks 13-16)

• Expand to all attorneys and paralegals
• Provide ongoing training on new Copilot features
• Conduct monthly quality audits (sample AI-assisted work product)
• Update AI use policy based on lessons learned

Phase 6: Continuous improvement (Ongoing)

• Track efficiency metrics (time savings, cost reduction)
• Monitor case law developments on AI use and privilege
• Adjust policies based on state bar ethics guidance
• Evaluate new legal AI tools and integration opportunities

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Microsoft Copilot review legal documents without risking attorney-client privilege?

Likely yes, if proper safeguards are implemented. ABA Formal Opinion 477R (2017) allows law firms to use cloud computing services, including AI tools, without waiving attorney-client privilege if the firm takes "reasonable steps" to protect confidentiality. Microsoft's Business Terms prohibit accessing customer data for purposes other than service delivery, and Microsoft doesn't train AI models on customer prompts (Commercial Data Protection commitment). However, conservative practice suggests additional controls: apply sensitivity labels to privileged documents, enable audit logging, use encryption, and document confidentiality safeguards. No published case law directly addresses whether AI provider access waives privilege, so consult ethics counsel and consider obtaining client consent for high-stakes matters.

How do I protect attorney-client privilege when using Copilot?

Implement five categories of controls: (1) Sensitivity labels: Apply "Attorney-Client Privileged" labels to client communications, blocking Copilot access or restricting to authorized attorneys. (2) Access controls: Use role-based permissions ensuring only attorneys on specific matters can query Copilot for privileged information. (3) Information barriers: Prevent cross-matter data exposure using Microsoft Purview segments. (4) Audit logging: Enable Premium Audit to document confidentiality safeguards for privilege log purposes. (5) Vendor due diligence: Review Microsoft's security practices and contractual commitments on data access. Document your privilege protection framework in matter files and be prepared to defend confidentiality measures if challenged during litigation. Consider separate Microsoft 365 tenants for highly sensitive matters (government investigations, trade secret litigation).

Is Microsoft Copilot accurate enough for legal work?

Copilot is accurate for summarization, drafting, and research assistance—but not for authoritative legal analysis without verification. Large language models (GPT-4 underlying Copilot) suffer from "hallucination" where AI generates plausible but incorrect information, including fake case citations and inaccurate statutory references. Documented incidents (Mata v. Avianca, Park v. Kim) involved attorneys sanctioned for submitting AI-generated briefs with fabricated cases. Critical requirement: Verify every case citation, statute, and regulation using Westlaw, LexisNexis, or official reporters. Treat Copilot as a first draft requiring attorney review (ABA Rule 1.1 competence obligation). Conduct quality assurance sampling (10-20% of AI-assisted work) to measure accuracy and adjust supervision. Legal research platforms with verified citation databases (Westlaw Precision, Lexis+ AI) reduce hallucination risk better than general-purpose Copilot.

What are the ethical obligations when using AI for legal work?

Three primary ethical rules apply: (1) Rule 1.1 (Competence): Attorneys must understand AI tools' benefits and limitations (Comment 8), verify AI-generated content before relying on it, and maintain requisite legal knowledge. Submitting unverified AI work violates competence obligations. (2) Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality): Attorneys must implement "competent safeguards" against unauthorized disclosure when using cloud-based AI (encryption, access controls, DLP policies, vendor due diligence). (3) Rule 5.1/5.3 (Supervision): Partners and managers must ensure firm policies govern AI use, train staff on ethical obligations, and monitor for violations. State bars increasingly issue ethics opinions on AI (e.g., California Formal Opinion 2023-200). Consult your jurisdiction's bar counsel before deployment, document verification steps, and maintain audit trails demonstrating ethical compliance.

Should law firms get client consent before using Copilot?

It depends on jurisdiction, matter sensitivity, and client sophistication. Some law firms obtain advance consent as best practice, particularly for government investigations, trade secret matters, or highly regulated industries. Consent demonstrates transparency and aligns with fiduciary duties. Other firms treat AI as internal practice management (no consent required, similar to using legal research databases or document management systems). Consider these factors: (1) State bar guidance: Some jurisdictions require disclosure of technology that materially affects representation. (2) Client sophistication: Institutional clients may have vendor approval processes requiring notice of subcontractors (including AI providers). (3) Matter sensitivity: High-stakes litigation or M&A may warrant explicit consent. (4) Marketing advantage: Transparency about AI use can differentiate firm as innovative and client-focused. If obtaining consent, provide clear explanation of what AI does, what verification occurs, and what confidentiality safeguards exist.