Is Your Firm's AI Use Defensible?
Most small law firms are already using AI — without a governance framework. That creates direct exposure under Rules 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, and 5.3. We help you fix that before courts, clients, or bar counsel ask the question. We call that Defensible AI™.
Typical Firm — Governance Posture
This is where most firms start. Your Defensibility Score reveals exactly where your firm stands.
Run your assessment nowPublished Author
Practical AI for Small Law Firms
Sanctions Tracker
1,981 cases, updated weekly
Patent Pending
Phase 0 Assessment methodology
Built on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and ABA Formal Opinion 512. See the Mapping → · Take the CLE Course →
The Framework
AI risk comes from ungoverned adoption — not from adoption itself.
Every firm using AI without documented governance has the same problem: no defensible position when something goes wrong. Our methodology — starting with the AI Governance Phase 0 Assessment — fixes that in a structured, measurable way.
00
Phase Zero
AI Governance Phase 0 Assessment
Score your current AI governance posture across 100+ controls mapped to ABA Model Rules. Identify exactly where your exposure is — before courts, carriers, or clients find it first. Produces a Defensibility Score and a written remediation roadmap.
01
Phase One
Design
Use your Phase 0 Assessment results to build a governance architecture — written policies, supervision protocols, vendor standards, confidentiality safeguards, documentation requirements. Specific to your firm, your tools, and your practice areas.
02
Phase Two
Deploy
Implement governance into daily operations. Train attorneys and staff. Establish audit trails. Maintain the framework as regulations evolve. Repeat the AI Governance Phase 0 Assessment on a defined cadence to document governance improvement over time.
Professional Responsibility
The ABA Model Rules don’t pause when you open ChatGPT.
Five rules are directly implicated every time your firm uses AI. Without documented governance, each one is a potential disciplinary exposure.
Rule 1.1
Competence
Attorneys must understand AI capabilities and limitations — including hallucination risk — and document how they verify outputs before use.
Rule 1.6
Confidentiality
Client data entered into unapproved AI systems may constitute unauthorized disclosure. Vendor data retention policies must be reviewed before any tool is approved.
Rule 3.3
Candor to Tribunal
The most frequently sanctioned rule. AI-generated citations that are unverified and submitted to a court create direct disciplinary liability.
Rules 5.1 / 5.3
Supervision
AI is a non-lawyer assistant. Partners are responsible for firm-wide AI supervision. No output is exempt from review. No delegation of professional judgment is permitted.
KeaneAdvisors.AI maintains the most comprehensive public tracker of attorney AI sanctions in the United States — assembled from court records, bar orders, and published disciplinary actions. The list grows weekly.
ABA Formal Opinion 512
Makes clear that competence under Rule 1.1 extends to understanding AI tools used in legal practice.