The general counsel had anticipated questions on litigation strategy and M&A risk when the quarterly board meeting began. But within the first fifteen minutes, the conversation shifted sharply to topics including AI governance. A director asked how the company was managing legal exposure from generative AI tools. Another raised broader concerns about ethical oversight and whether the organization was doing enough to guard against bias and reputational harm.
The GC glanced at the deck in front of them. AI wasn’t on the agenda. But it was clearly on the board’s mind.
In that moment, it became clear that generative AI was no longer a novelty or a tech experiment. It had become an AI governance issue. And the board expected the legal function to have answers.
AI Governance Questions Boards Are Asking—and How Legal Can Lead
As companies adopt AI tools across operations, board directors are zeroing in on the risks that come with them. These risks aren’t hypothetical. They touch reputation, regulatory exposure, cybersecurity posture, and ethical commitments. AI has moved from a technical discussion to a governance priority. And the GC often becomes the point person who must translate complex risks into clear, actionable oversight.
Directors want assurance that AI tools won’t introduce biased outcomes in hiring or customer service. Beyond that, they ask for proof that sensitive data isn’t being mishandled or shared with third-party models. They also push for clarity on liability if AI is used in contracts, marketing, or pricing. Just as importantly, they expect clear accountability for monitoring, correcting, and reporting on these issues.
Pointing to a policy doesn’t answer these questions. Only fluency, preparation, and leadership do.
AI Governance Role-Play Builds Confidence Before the Board Asks
Legal teams know how to prepare for high-stakes conversations. What’s new about AI governance is how unsettled the rules still are. Few companies have mature AI frameworks. Even fewer have tested them under pressure. That’s why role-playing AI risk scenarios can be one of the most effective tools for readiness.
Simulating a board conversation forces legal teams to pressure test their policies, cross-functional processes, and escalation protocols. It exposes gaps between written procedures and operational clarity. More importantly, it gives legal leadership a chance to align internally before facing external scrutiny.
A well-structured role-play might start with a simple prompt: a director asks what internal controls ensure employees using generative AI aren’t exposing the company to data loss or regulatory breaches. Legal responds, but so do compliance, privacy, and IT. Within minutes, the team learns whether answers align, ownership is clear, and policy language holds up under live questioning.
Understanding the Board’s Perspective
Board members aren’t looking for technical detail. They want confidence that the company is taking responsible steps to manage emerging risks. That means they expect the legal department to explain how the company evaluates new AI tools, approves their use, trains employees, and escalates concerns when something goes wrong. They also look for alignment with enterprise risk management—especially where AI overlaps with cybersecurity, data privacy, procurement, and product compliance.
Directors increasingly ask whether the company audits its use of AI, whether procedures exist to address unintended consequences, and whether roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. Bias, transparency, explainability, and vendor oversight are no longer niche topics. They’re standard questions.
GCs who prepare only for legal issues miss the governance lens. GCs who prepare for both lead the conversation.
Training the Executive Team for AI Governance Conversations
Some legal departments now create internal training modules to help executives prepare for board conversations about AI. These aren’t technical briefings. They’re scenario-based exercises designed to expose leaders to the kinds of questions directors are asking and to practice answering them with clarity and alignment.
For example, a session might simulate a board inquiry into AI use in marketing automation or automated contracting. Executives receive a briefing document outlining current policy, known risks, and decision-making responsibilities. During the role-play, they respond directly to directors’ questions and defend the company’s approach. Afterward, legal facilitates a debrief to identify gaps and adjust policies as needed.
These exercises turn AI policy into living governance. They ensure that when directors raise difficult questions, executives respond in ways that reinforce credibility and trust.
Preparedness Is a Leadership Signal
When GCs anticipate questions on AI and prepare the company to respond, they send a signal that goes beyond risk management. They show the company is treating AI with the seriousness it demands—and that legal is not just interpreting policy but shaping governance.
Preparedness isn’t about having the perfect answer to every hypothetical. It’s about knowing the risks, clarifying responsibilities, and showing how the organization will respond. It’s about speaking the language of governance, not just compliance.
AI has entered the boardroom. Companies that lead in this space are the ones whose legal teams don’t wait for questions. They rehearse them. They turn policy into action. And they make sure their boards see that legal is ready to lead.
Final Reflection
The question is no longer whether AI risk will show up in the boardroom. It is how ready the GC is to meet it. The difference between reacting and leading lies in preparation. The best-prepared legal leaders rehearse the hard questions before they are asked, align with their peers on how to respond, and stand ready to explain how their policies are not just documents but frameworks that protect the enterprise.
