LexisNexis | Can your firm explain how it uses AI?
Not long ago, the question shaping conversations about AI in law firms came from leadership: should we be using AI at all?
As adoption has accelerated across the profession, that question has largely been answered, (yes). Today, a different one is shaping how firms approach AI.
This time, it’s coming from clients and can surface in firm questionnaires, matter reviews, or emails asking for clarification on drafts: How exactly did AI contribute to this work?
Whatever the format, the underlying issue is the same. Clients want transparency around how AI is used in legal services.
For many firms, that moment can feel awkward. AI may already support research, drafting or document analysis, but explaining exactly where it fits in the workflow, how outputs are verified, and who takes responsibility is not always straightforward. The challenge is not using the technology itself, but the story behind it.
AI strategy in the modern legal workflow
Across the legal profession, AI is a core support throughout workflows consisting of research, drafting, and document analysis. However, while adoption is widespread, structured integration is still developing. Our recent survey revealed that only 17% of UK legal professionals say AI is embedded in their team’s strategy and operations, which means many organisations are still defining how these tools fit into their workflows.
As workflows become more formalised, firms will be expected to treat transparency as an operational practice rather than a communications exercise. Below are four practical steps legal teams can adopt to strengthen their client-facing messaging about AI usage.
- Start with a simple AI assurance statement
When clients ask about AI use, they generally want reassurance that the firm has clear safeguards in place. A concise AI assurance statement can provide that reassurance. In most cases, a single page is enough.
The statement should outline four points:
- Approved tools: Which AI platforms (or platform categories) lawyers are authorised to use
- Permitted use cases: The types of legal work where AI can assist
- Review standards: How lawyers verify AI outputs before work reaches the client
- Accountability: Confirmation that professional responsibility remains with the lawyer delivering the advice
This document does not need to be public by default. However, having it ready allows client partners to respond confidently if questions arise.
- Ensure you can explain how AI fits into your legal workflow
Transparency is easier when firms can clearly describe their workflows. For example, many firms structure AI-assisted work along these lines:
- AI supports early research, summarisation or first-draft preparation
- A lawyer reviews the output and validates it against authoritative legal sources
- Legal analysis and judgment are developed by the legal team
- A supervising lawyer or partner signs off on the final advice
This approach reinforces an important point: AI may accelerate parts of the workflow, but legal judgment remains human.
- Agree when disclosure on AI-usage is appropriate
Not every internal use of AI requires client disclosure. However, firms benefit from agreeing internally on when transparency is appropriate.
Common scenarios include:
- Client-facing drafting
- Advice summaries or briefing notes
- First draft documents prepared with AI assistance
- Work involving complex or higher-risk matters
Having clear internal guidance helps ensure that disclosure is handled consistently across teams. When different teams give different answers, client confidence can quickly erode.
- Keep a record of your AI use
The final step is operational: Many firms are beginning to keep simple internal records of AI-assisted work. This process might include noting which tool was used, confirming that a lawyer reviewed the output, and recording final sign-off for client-facing documents.
Record-keeping does not need to become an administrative burden. The aim is simply to ensure that, if questions arise later, the firm can demonstrate how the work was produced and reviewed.
Returning to the client’s question
Let’s return to the increasingly inevitable client conversation:
Your client asks how AI contributed to a piece of work.
For some firms, that question may still feel uncomfortable. For yours, it’s straightforward because you’ve implemented a powerful workflow shift toward both internal and external AI usage accountability.
Firms that prepare early will see this shift is an opportunity rather than a risk. Being able to explain how AI fits into your workflow signals maturity and control. It also demonstrates that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of professional standards.
Read the full report, AI and the redesign of legal work, for a broader view of how AI is reshaping legal practice, where trust is forming fastest, and what legal leaders need to consider as the profession continues to change.
