Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
Here the tool receives a defined legal question and public sources, while someone ultimately relies on a preliminary research note. The policy must evaluate the whole path between them.
- 1Task and owner
- Lawyer or legal researcher wants to prepare a legal research draft. Name who owns the finished a preliminary research note; ownership should not disappear because AI helped produce it.
- 2Information involved
- A defined legal question and public sources. The classification must cover what the tool can retrieve as well as what the requester types.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. Confirm the approved account, retention setting and any connected service before the request begins.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is a preliminary research note. The policy needs to know what happens after generation, including publication, communication and automated use.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Generated authorities, quotations or current-law claims may be false or outdated. The policy route should reflect this possible harm instead of relying on how ordinary the task sounds.
- 6Human review
- qualified lawyer should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. Make the review happen before reliance and give the reviewer a real way to stop the work.
Possible policy routes
The task name alone cannot decide it.
A published workplace policy can return different answers for the same task. These are the practical branches worth encoding.
A routine policy route may be possible
The request may fit ordinary policy handling once the exact account is approved, only the minimum public and confidential legal context is used, a preliminary research note remains within the stated purpose, and qualified lawyer reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Pause the ordinary route whenever the account or data handling is uncertain, generated authorities, quotations or current-law claims may be false or outdated, or a preliminary research note reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
Do not continue unchanged when restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before qualified lawyer can intervene, or verify every primary source and state jurisdiction, date and uncertainty cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Which approved account will perform prepare a legal research draft, and what external connections can it reach?
- 02
Who is permitted to expose a defined legal question and public sources to this tool and for this purpose?
- 03
At what point does a preliminary research note move beyond the requester’s private draft?
- 04
What evidence will qualified lawyer use to accept, correct or reject the result?
- 05
Is this genuinely one request, or will repeated use turn it into an embedded process?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- lawyer or legal researcher
- task
- Use AI to prepare a legal research draft.
- information
- a defined legal question and public sources
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Legal guidance
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- qualified lawyer
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Verify every primary source and state jurisdiction, date and uncertainty
- ✓
Reduce a defined legal question and public sources to the smallest useful extract and remove fields unrelated to a preliminary research note.
- ✓
Reassess the request whenever its tool, information classification, frequency or consequence changes.
- ✓
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of a defined legal question and public sources into the audit trail.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to prepare a legal research draft automatically allowed?
Permission depends on the facts submitted for this request. A different tool, information class, region or use of a preliminary research note can produce another route.
How specific should the workplace AI request be?
Describe a preliminary research note, identify a defined legal question and public sources, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how qualified lawyer will review it.
What should remain after the decision?
Record the request and reviewer without copying unnecessary parts of a defined legal question and public sources into the audit trail. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying a defined legal question and public sources would create unnecessary risk.