What are the top 6 AI governance mistakes legal teams make? Kevin Albert of Casepoint provides the answer in this blog post!

In his blog post titled (wait for it!) Top 6 AI Governance Mistakes Legal Teams Make, available here) Kevin discusses (wait for it again!) the top 6 AI governance mistakes legal teams make (duh!). Here’s one of them:

Entering Sensitive Data Into Unapproved AI Tools

Data privacy and confidentiality risks should be front of mind before anyone pastes sensitive information — such as contracts, client data, internal memos, or litigation materials — into an AI tool. That risk is especially high when teams use public or unapproved tools that do not offer the level of security, retention controls, or contractual protections legal work requires. In Casepoint’s AI Maturity in the Legal Industry whitepaper, multiple surveys found that at least half of respondents were already using AI in ways that should concern legal teams, and one legal-industry survey found that more than 80% were using tools their company had not provided or formally approved.

If sensitive information is entered into the wrong system, legal teams may create privilege, confidentiality, data protection, and compliance issues. Strong governance starts with clear rules on what data may be used with AI, which tools are approved, and when human review or escalation is required. Data classification controls and practical training can help reinforce those guardrails.

So, what are the other five top AI governance mistakes legal teams make? Find out here, it’s only one click. It would be an AI governance mistake not to click! 😉

So, what do you think? How does your organization promote AI governance? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image created using GPT-4’s Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “robot holding up six fingers”.

Disclosure: Casepoint is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.