World Model Readiness AI that does not waive privilege

Module · AI that does not waive privilege

The Legal Team AI Check

Legal work has a property most work does not: the confidentiality of the material is itself a legal protection, and it can be lost by a single careless act. AI is enormously useful to a legal team and enormously good at destroying exactly that protection. This module checks the five things that let your team use AI without giving away its advantages: keeping privilege intact, verifying what the AI says about a contract, catching the citations it invents, holding the confidentiality boundary between matters, and capturing what the team learns so the AI does not have to relearn it every time.

Question 1 of 5 · Privilege stays intact

Do you know whether feeding privileged material to an AI tool risks waiving privilege?

Legal privilege depends on confidentiality, and pasting privileged material into a tool that trains on inputs or shares them with a provider can be argued to breach it. The protection that makes legal advice safe to give can be waived by one lawyer reaching for a convenient chatbot. This is a question you answer before use, not after a dispute.

Question 2 of 5 · Contract reads are verified

When AI reviews or summarises a contract, does a lawyer verify what it claims the document says?

AI is confident and often wrong about what a clause actually does: it misses a carve-out, inverts an obligation, or reassures you about a risk that is right there in the text. A summary taken on trust is worse than no summary, because it stops the lawyer from reading the clause themselves. The document is the authority, not the AI's account of it.

Question 3 of 5 · Citations are checked

Does someone check that the cases and clauses the AI cites actually exist and say what it claims?

AI invents citations that look perfect: real-sounding case names, plausible section numbers, confident quotations, none of it real. Lawyers have been sanctioned for filing them. Every authority an AI provides has to be pulled and read at the source before it goes anywhere near a court, a client, or a contract.

Question 4 of 5 · Matters stay walled

Do AI tools respect the confidentiality walls between clients and matters?

Legal teams keep information barriers between clients, sometimes between teams on the same matter. An AI tool that pools every document it has seen, or lets one matter's context surface in another, drives straight through those walls. A conflict of interest created by a shared AI index is no less a conflict for being accidental.

Question 5 of 5 · Precedent is captured

Does the team capture its own precedents and positions so AI works from them, not from scratch?

A legal team's value is accumulated judgement: the clauses it prefers, the positions it has taken, the playbook it has built. If AI drafts from the open internet every time instead of from your own captured precedent, you get generic work and you relearn the same lessons repeatedly. Captured knowledge is what turns a general model into your team's tool.

For the statistics · one click each

Three questions for the public picture

These do not affect your score. They feed the anonymised, aggregated statistics; groups under 8 respondents are never shown.

Where does your legal team use AI today?

Not yet
Legal research
Contract review
Drafting and negotiation
Across most matters

Do you have a rule for privileged material going into AI tools?

No rule
Assumed safe, no rule
Informal caution
Written policy, vetted tools
No AI used on legal work

How does the team handle citations an AI provides?

Used unchecked
Names spot-checked
Checked before filing
Every citation pulled and read
AI not used for authorities

Your context

Used to calibrate the report. Company size and sector remain in the anonymized dataset; your email does not.