AI Governance for
Law Firms and
Accounting Firms

The Structural Shift

AI is reshaping how professional work is produced inside law and accounting firms.

As new tools enter daily workflow, variation in drafting, analysis, and client advice becomes easier to introduce, and harder to detect. In work that carries malpractice exposure and reputational risk, unmanaged variation compounds.

Inconsistent reasoning across client projects is not innovation. It is institutional drift.

When the number of available tools expands faster than a firm’s internal standards, experimentation begins to shape culture. And culture, once shaped by improvisation, is difficult to reverse.

The Institutional Gap

A thousand tools does not mean a thousand conveniences. It means expanded workflow entry points, new variations in how work is drafted, subtle shifts in precedent formation and internal training, and uncoordinated judgment calls across staff.

Most firms are experimenting. Few have defined a firm-level position governing where AI belongs, and where it does not.  

Without that position, standards emerge informally. Informal standards become habit. Habit becomes precedent.

The Outcome

The objective is institutional clarity:

• Defined boundaries between permissible and impermissible use

• Leadership-level alignment

• A documented AI Use Policy reflecting the firm’s own judgment

• Consistent application across staff and work product

The firm remains in control of its decisions.

My Role

I work with one firm at a time.

I structure the conversation that must occur before tool adoption outpaces judgment.

The result is not a template. It is a firm-specific position aligned with your standards, your risk tolerance, and your operating environment.

For Managing Partners

For Managing Partners responsible for financial and reputational risk arising from the use or misuse of AI.

If you believe your firm needs a clear, durable position on AI use in client work and advice, schedule a conversation.