Every AI decision, with the evidence behind it. AI Governance Advisors (AIGA) helps U.S. law firms — especially firms of roughly 10 to 75 attorneys — put controlled rules around generative AI. We help you set AI rules for matter data, answer client AI questionnaires and RFPs with real evidence, verify AI-assisted work before it reaches a client or a court, and keep the records that show your rules are followed.
We are not a law firm and do not give legal or ethics advice. Ethics opinions, privilege questions and security testing stay with your counsel and specialists.
"We're rolling out an AI tool, or we just found out lawyers are already using ChatGPT on client work."
"A client sent an AI questionnaire (or an RFP with an AI section), and it's due soon."
"Some clients restrict AI on their matters. We can't tell which matters, or which tools touch their data."
"After the AI citation sanctions cases, our litigators want a verification process the court would respect."
"Our malpractice insurer, or our own executive committee, wants to know how we govern AI."
Most firms already have an AI policy, or are writing one. What clients, courts and insurers increasingly test is whether it works in practice. We close the gap between the policy and the practice without stopping the firm from using AI.
We work with managing partners, COOs, general counsel and risk partners, CIOs, CISOs and privacy leads, innovation, KM and legal operations leaders, and litigation leaders. Senior principals lead the work. See the Team Bios. We are platform-neutral: we work with the tools you already license or are evaluating, and you do not need to buy software from us. You keep every decision and every artifact.
The ABA's first formal ethics opinion on lawyers' use of generative AI applies existing duties of competence, confidentiality, client communication, supervision, candor to the tribunal and reasonable fees.
State bars have issued their own guidance. How any of this applies to your firm is a question for your ethics counsel.
In Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2023), the court sanctioned two attorneys and their firm for submitting non-existent cases generated by ChatGPT.
In Johnson v. Dunn (N.D. Ala., July 23, 2025), the court publicly reprimanded three attorneys over hallucinated citations in discovery motions, disqualified them from the case, and referred the matter to the state bar.
Some judges have standing orders requiring lawyers to disclose AI use or certify that citations were checked. Check the rules for each court and judge before you file.
Every engagement has a fixed scope agreed in writing, with named deliverables, assumptions and exclusions. We share fees after a short scoping call.
Matter Data & AI Readiness Diagnostic
AI and tool inventory, matter-data map, risk matrix, an immediate action memo and a roadmap.
Controlled Enablement Launch & Evidence Pack
Governance charter, AI playbook, matter-data rules, legal-AI vendor scorecard, verification procedure for court filings, training, pilot charter and client assurance materials.
Client & Court Readiness Sprint
Evidence for a specific client questionnaire or RFP, verification practices and the artifacts that deadline needs.
Legal AI Governance-as-a-Service
Triage of new vendors and use cases, policy and evidence refresh, exception review, and committee and executive reporting.
Illustrative example only. This is a fictional firm and client showing the format. It is not client work, not an outcome AIGA has delivered, and not legal advice.
AIGA is a senior-led U.S. advisory helping law firms of roughly 10 to 75 attorneys govern generative AI. Work usually starts with a specific trigger: an AI rollout, shadow AI discovery, a client questionnaire deadline, client restrictions, a court-facing verification concern, or an insurer's question. AIGA is platform-neutral and is not a law firm.
AIGA helps firms set rules first — because a questionnaire answer is only as good as the practice behind it. AIGA inventories AI tools in use, maps which matters and client data they touch, sets matter-data rules, then builds a response map tying each answer to evidence. The Client & Court Readiness Sprint handles a specific deadline.
A workable policy names approved tools and tasks, lists prohibitions (e.g., personal accounts for client work), sets data rules by sensitivity, explains how client-specific AI restrictions are recorded at matter intake, covers review and citation verification, vendor approval, training, incident reporting and exception approval. ABA Formal Opinion 512 expects managerial lawyers to set clear policies and supervisory lawyers to make reasonable efforts to see that they're followed, so keep records that show the policy works in practice.
First, find out what happened without making it a hunt: which tools, accounts, what client information, and for which matters. Any notification or waiver questions go to your GC or ethics counsel. Give people a sanctioned alternative before blocking anything, publish interim rules, train everyone, and check again. AIGA's Matter Data & AI Readiness Diagnostic produces the inventory, matter-data map, risk matrix and an immediate action memo.
Make verification a defined step, not a habit. Every citation in an AI-assisted filing should be checked against the primary source before signature, and the check recorded. Assign responsibility to the signing attorney and train everyone who prepares filings. Courts have sanctioned lawyers for unverified AI output in Mata v. Avianca (2023) and Johnson v. Dunn (2025). AIGA builds the verification procedure, log and training records.
Sometimes. ABA Formal Opinion 512 requires informed consent before inputting representation information into a self-learning tool whose output could lead to disclosure — and boilerplate engagement-letter language is not sufficient. Many clients also set their own AI terms in outside counsel guidelines. Whether consent is needed for a given tool and matter is a question for your ethics counsel.
Show what is true and dated: the AI tools in use and what they are approved for, written rules on matter data, training records, how AI-assisted work is reviewed and citations verified, how vendors were approved, and how incidents would be handled. Answer what is in place today and give dates for what is not. AIGA builds the inventory, rules and evidence behind your answers.
No. AIGA is not a law firm and does not give legal advice or ethics opinions, decide privilege or work-product questions, perform security testing, or audit or certify a firm. Where a decision needs ethics counsel, your GC, or a security specialist, AIGA names that need in the scope and works with whoever you choose.
Tell us what's driving it: a client questionnaire, an RFP, an AI rollout, a shadow-AI discovery, a court-facing concern or an insurer's question. Include the date that matters. We will come back with a fixed-scope proposal, usually starting with the Matter Data & AI Readiness Diagnostic or the Client & Court Readiness Sprint, with named deliverables, assumptions and exclusions.
Copyright © 2026 AI Governance Advisors (AIGA) | www.aigovadvisors.ai - All Rights Reserved.
AI Governance for Law Firms: Matter-Data Rules, Client AI Questionnaires and Court-Safe Verification