Establish a framework for legal use cases
How can you authorise a legal AI pilot while maintaining control over confidentiality, reliability and accountability?
3500 € per session, excl. VAT
In short
Two days to design a governance framework applicable to a legal AI pilot: authorised scope, responsibilities, documentary checks and an evaluation protocol. Participants build a prototype using a fictitious case file, test its failures and prepare a conditional launch decision, without industrial-scale deployment or automation of sensitive decisions.
Why this training?
A plausible contractual summary may omit a decisive qualification or attribute an obligation to the wrong party. Governance must link each use to verifiable evidence and explicit human responsibility. Oversight is not limited to instructions given to the model: access, corpus, provider, logging and incident handling must support documented authorisation for the pilot. Running case study: Sertalys Prévoyance, a fictitious insurance organisation, wishes to trial assisted analysis of subcontracting clauses. Its committee requires an authorisation dossier, evidence of reliability and a shutdown procedure before any pilot. Transfer to the workplace: Present the dossier to the legal, compliance and security committee; adapt the controls to the real-world context before authorising a limited, supervised and reversible pilot.
Objectives of this training
- Define the boundaries of authorised uses, prohibited uses and uses subject to validation
- Assign responsibilities for oversight and escalation
- Prototype a supervised contract analysis workflow
- Measure fidelity to source documents using a test set
- Defend a conditional decision to launch the pilot
Who is it for and what are the prerequisites?
Roles and tasks concerned
- Legal departments and compliance managers in a regulated environment
- Risk, data protection and security managers involved in legal projects
Prior skills
- Practise legal analysis or regulatory risk control
- Know how to use generative AI and verify its responses against supporting documents
- Be familiar with internal authorisation and validation procedures
What you will work on
Define the scope of authorisation
Objective: Distinguish assistance from decision-making. Contractual uses, exclusions and criticality.
Map the risks
Objective: Link failures to legal consequences. Omissions, fabricated quotations, confidentiality, bias.
Organise responsibilities
Objective: Assign responsibility for validation and adjudication. Legal, compliance, security and data protection roles.
Establish controls for data and providers
Objective: Define the preliminary checks. Access, retention, reuse, subcontracting; regulatory applicability to be checked with your legal department.
Structure the corpus
Objective: Make analyses traceable. Versions, dates, documentary authority and scope.
Prototype the workflow
Objective: Put human controls into concrete form. Input, analysis, citation, abstention and validation.
Build the tests
Objective: Define a verifiable reference. Expected cases, ambiguous cases and out-of-scope cases.
Measure quality
Objective: Quantify deviations from source documents. Fidelity, omissions and unsubstantiated claims.
Test failures
Objective: Verify refusal and escalation. Contradictory document, missing source, embedded malicious instruction.
Correct and retest
Objective: Assess the proposed corrections. Instructions, corpus and compensating controls.
Prepare the pilot
Objective: Set conditions for its launch. Sample, access permissions, monitoring, incidents and shutdown.
Support authorisation
Objective: Present the case for launch, postponement or refusal. Available evidence and residual risks.
What you take away
- Pilot charter and responsibility matrix
- Risk register and associated controls
- Documented prototype of the analysis workflow
- Test specification with results and anomalies
- Conditional authorisation dossier and shutdown procedure
Method and assessment
- Short teaching inputs followed by immediate practice on the case study used throughout.
- Individual work followed by work in pairs, with peer review of the outputs.
- Guided group discussion: what works, what needs correcting and what remains a human decision.
- Preparation: Identify a potential legal use case and its current validation steps, without sharing a confidential file. Arrange a tool authorised by the organisation; use only the fictitious or anonymised cases prepared for the exercises.
Observable criteria: Each priority risk has an owner and a verifiable control; Each legal conclusion tested refers to an identifiable document; The rates of omissions and unsubstantiated assertions are calculated with their denominators; Any critical anomaly blocks onward transmission and triggers a review by a qualified professional; The plan specifies the scope, acceptance thresholds and stopping conditions.
Frequently asked questions
Are real contracts required?
No, the exercises use fictitious or anonymised files.
Who validates the conclusions?
A qualified professional; AI does not replace their judgement.
Will the solution be rolled out at production scale?
No, the 14 hours excluding breaks produce a prototype and a pilot plan.
Which tool should be used?
Only a tool authorised by the organisation, after checking its terms of use.
Last updated: