How to Evaluate AI Tools for Your Law Firm Before Uploading Client Documents

A lawyer finds an AI assistant that can summarize a folder in minutes. Before anyone uploads a client document, the firm needs to know which product and account tier is under review, what the tool will do, and what happens to the information.

A vendor's general promise is not the same as verified behavior in the firm's configuration. Record what the vendor says, what the firm has checked, and what remains unknown.

Identify the exact tool and workflow

Write down the product name, account tier, enabled features, administrator, and intended workflow. “Use AI for research” is too broad to review. “Summarize public case opinions for attorney review” gives the firm a testable purpose.

Name the users, information sources, output destination, and any step that can send, change, or delete information. Identify where a person must approve the result before it affects a client or matter.

Review information handling and access

Ask the vendor and administrator for the terms and settings that apply to this exact product and tier:

• Are prompts, uploaded files, or outputs used to train or improve models?
• How long are inputs, outputs, logs, and backups retained?
• What deletion process applies, including retention exceptions?
• Who can access the material, including support staff and connected services?
• Which connectors, plugins, agents, or integrations are enabled?
• Can the firm limit access by user, matter, workspace, or role?
• What audit records are available, and who can review them?

Distinguish a written contractual statement from a setting visible in the tenant, a test result, or an independent assurance report. Each supports a different conclusion. Ask for the relevant document or configuration evidence and note its date and scope.

Removing a name from a document does not by itself establish that the remaining details cannot identify a client or matter. Follow the firm's approved data rules and use only information authorized for the specific tool and workflow.

Record open questions before a pilot

Download the editable AI tool register. Add one row for each approved product and workflow, fill in the short column headings, and leave unresolved items visible for the reviewer.

Keep unresolved items visible. Examples include an unclear deletion exception, a connector with broader access than expected, or vendor terms that do not name the selected account tier. Do not convert an unanswered question into an assumption.

Set narrow pilot conditions

Before a pilot, document:

1. The approved purpose, tool, users, and information boundary.
2. The test materials and success criteria, using approved non-client or appropriately authorized data.
3. The person who reviews outputs and decides whether they can be used.
4. The access, retention, and activity evidence the firm will inspect.
5. How users report an unexpected result, disclosure, or access issue.
6. Who may stop the pilot and what would trigger a new review.

A pilot should not quietly become general use. Review results and open conditions with the responsible attorney and administrator before expanding the workflow.

Connect evaluation to policy and implementation

Use this guide with the law firm AI policy guide and editable sample. For a scoped review of the selected tool, account tier, data terms, permissions, and use case, see the AI Vendor & Agent Readiness Review.

The readiness review distinguishes vendor statements from evidence reviewed in the agreed scope. It does not promise that a tool is compliant or appropriate for every matter.