It was meant to save time. However, discussions around the acceptable use of generative AI highlight the need for guidelines and responsible implementation. Establishing what constitutes acceptable use is crucial to avoid pitfalls.
An eager legal operations analyst, under pressure to deliver faster, used a generative AI platform to redline a high-stakes master services agreement. The AI went beyond formatting suggestions. It confidently deleted an indemnification clause and minimized the importance of a negotiated termination provision, which exceeded the acceptable use of AI tools. The analyst assumed the tool could streamline what had historically taken days.
The contract was signed.
Months later, the relationship collapsed. Without the indemnity, the company was left exposed. By the time the legal team realized a key risk-shifting clause had vanished, it was too late. When the CEO asked how such a critical omission slipped through, the general counsel had no good answer regarding the acceptable use of generative AI.
The technology had not failed. The real failure was the absence of clear boundaries for when, where, and how generative AI should be used in legal workflows to ensure acceptable use.
he Risk of Unclear Boundaries in the Acceptable Use of Generative AI
The appeal of generative AI is obvious. It promises speed, scale, and efficiency. For legal departments stretched thin and asked to move faster, the ability to automate first drafts or structure complex documents feels like a breakthrough. However, defining the acceptable use ensures these promises are fulfilled without unnecessary risk.
But generative AI is not a lawyer. It does not weigh business context, apply judgment, or interpret nuance. It generates text that sounds convincing, even when it is inaccurate. Without clear boundaries, its confidence can mask flaws that only appear when the stakes are high.
The danger is not that AI will replace lawyers. The true danger is that, without guidance, teams will assign AI tasks that require legal judgment. That quiet delegation can turn a powerful productivity tool into a hidden source of liability. Hence, it is essential to define what constitutes acceptable use of generative AI.
Building a Tiered Framework for Generative AI Use
Some legal departments are moving beyond general principles and adopting a structured framework to guide acceptable AI use. Instead of trying to anticipate every scenario, they create tiers of risk that provide practical guardrails, ensuring all align with acceptable generative AI use.
Low-risk uses include drafting internal policies, conducting legal knowledge searches, or preparing first drafts of simple agreements. These tasks speed up work without exposing the organization to undue risk.
Moderate-risk uses involve client-facing communications, regulatory summaries, or contract clause analysis. These applications can save time, but they require human oversight and final approval by experienced counsel.
High-risk uses—such as drafting final contract language, regulatory filings, or decisions involving sensitive employee data—demand close supervision. They should only move forward with explicit approval and review through established legal processes.
Every organization must adapt these tiers to its own risk profile, but the model itself removes ambiguity and establishes shared expectations.
Drafting an AI Governance Policy That Works
Policies that sit untouched in binders rarely influence behavior. Effective AI governance policies must be simple, clear, and actionable to ensure they align with the acceptable use of generative AI.
For example, legal can establish that generative AI may support first drafts of internal documents, but all outputs must be reviewed and approved before external use. AI cannot interpret or revise contracts unless the legal department has given explicit authorization. No confidential, privileged, or regulated information may enter a generative AI platform unless it has been formally vetted and approved.
This kind of language avoids unnecessary complexity while setting boundaries that employees can follow. It creates clarity, reduces fear of missteps, and makes responsible and acceptable use of generative AI part of everyday practice.
Creating a Culture of Safe Use
A policy is only the starting point. Culture turns it into action.
Legal leaders must model responsible use, showing where AI helps and explaining why certain tasks require human judgment. Training should be tailored to different roles, because what works for legal operations may not be appropriate for junior counsel. Real examples drawn from actual AI use make training memorable and relevant while demonstrating acceptable use.
Ongoing monitoring also reinforces culture. Tracking how AI is used should not be about policing employees. Instead, it should help identify blind spots, recurring issues, and areas where the policy must evolve. Safe use is not a one-time directive—it is an ongoing conversation.
Guardrails as Leadership, Not Restriction
The question is not whether AI will appear in legal workflows. It already has. The real question is whether that use will be guided by intention or left to assumption regarding acceptable use of generative AI.
Defining acceptable use does not slow innovation—it enables it. Without clear guardrails, employees either hesitate and over-escalate, or they move quickly without oversight. Neither approach is sustainable.
When legal builds clear, flexible policies, it sends a message of trust and accountability. Guardrails signal that the business can innovate quickly while protecting against costly mistakes. Far from slowing the work, they make it safer to meet the pace modern legal teams are expected to deliver.
Final Reflection: AI Governance Is a Leadership Imperative
Generative AI is not a passing experiment. It is already shaping how legal teams operate. For general counsel, this is not just about compliance—it is about leadership in defining what acceptable use looks like.
The organizations that succeed will not be those that leave AI use to chance. They will be the ones whose legal teams set clear rules, model responsible use, and build a culture of accountability.
The most effective answer legal can give when asked how AI fits into workflows is not a warning or a blanket restriction. The strongest response is confidence: here is the policy, here is the framework, and here is how we innovate responsibly together, ensuring acceptable use of generative AI.
