AI Readiness Check for Professional Firms

The check calculates your result in the browser and requires JavaScript. You can use the reading version of the 15 questions instead.

0 of 15 answered0%

01Do you know who in the firm uses AI tools, which tools they use, and for what tasks?

Include partners, lawyers, trainees, administrative staff and external providers. (Area: Use)

Yes Partly No

02Do you have a clear list of permitted, restricted and prohibited AI use cases?

For example research, summarisation, drafting, transcription, document review or client communications. (Area: Use)

Yes Partly No

03Is AI use limited to firm-approved tools and accounts rather than uncontrolled personal accounts?

Include browser extensions, transcription tools and AI features embedded in other software. (Area: Use)

Yes Partly No

04Does the team know what information must not, or should not, be entered into AI tools?

Especially client documents, privileged or confidential information, personal or sensitive data, matter details and unpublished material. (Area: Data)

Yes Partly No

05Has the firm checked how the provider uses data, how long it is retained, and what privacy or training settings apply?

Review the actual service and configuration used by the firm, not just the product name. (Area: Data)

Yes Partly No

06Can staff minimise, redact or remove unnecessary details before using AI?

Data minimisation is a practical control even where the use itself is approved. (Area: Data)

Yes Partly No

07Is human review mandatory before relying on AI output in professional work?

A confident-sounding output is not a substitute for professional verification. (Area: Quality)

Yes Partly No

08Is there a defined way to verify citations, authorities, facts and conclusions produced with AI?

Especially when the output is used in legal documents, opinions, correspondence or professional decisions. (Area: Quality)

Yes Partly No

09Is it clear when material AI use should be documented in the matter or workflow?

The goal is traceability and control, not documentation for its own sake. (Area: Quality)

Yes Partly No

10Does the firm have a designated person who approves tools, use cases and exceptions?

Without a clear owner, decisions tend to fragment across individual users. (Area: Governance)

Yes Partly No

11Does a new AI tool go through vendor, terms, security, data and access review before use?

A short repeatable intake process is better than ad hoc review. (Area: Governance)

Yes Partly No

12Is there a defined path for reporting and responding to an AI incident, error or unauthorised use?

For example uploading the wrong document, disclosing information or relying on incorrect output. (Area: Governance)

Yes Partly No

13Has the team received training that reflects real legal work rather than generic AI awareness?

Effective training includes examples, data rules and output review. (Area: People)

Yes Partly No

14Is there an easy channel to ask about uncertain uses or report a new tool?

A usable question channel can reduce Shadow AI more effectively than an impractical blanket ban. (Area: People)

Yes Partly No

15Are the policy, approved-tool list and training reviewed periodically?

Tools, features, terms and use cases change quickly. Review should be built into the system. (Area: People)

Yes Partly No

For a reading and printable version of the questions: 15 questions for professional firms on the use of AI.

The result does not determine compliance with law, professional rules or standards. It is a preliminary AI governance mapping only.

How well is AI use in your firm governed?

Your result

Three areas to review first

Recommended next step