AI prepares work. Approval, control and boundaries remain with lawyers.

Extracting, summarising, structuring or drafting are different tasks. Each activation needs an understandable purpose and must not silently expand to further data, documents or decisions. The boundaries of a function's use are defined before its use, not extended afterwards.

AI outputs are reviewable working material, not decisions. Client acceptance, legal assessment, dispatch and closure remain assigned to human roles. A model may prepare these steps but must not trigger or finally approve them itself.

In its own operations, logging, access restriction and professional approvals are part of the workflow so that a work step can be traced afterwards. External firm data is not introduced into a preview before a final data processing agreement and a security review. Which logs, models, subprocessors and retention rules apply to a specific pilot is defined beforehand; this page does not claim a particular certification or hosting architecture.

An AI draft only counts as a work result once a professionally responsible person has reviewed and approved it. This includes plausibility checks, comparison with the mandate, and the decision whether a draft is used further, corrected or discarded. Quality assurance is therefore a separate procedural step, not an automatic property of the tools used.

The workflows described on this page are a starting point. Scope, data categories, involved roles and control mechanisms for a specific firm use are discussed together with interested parties and recorded in writing before productive use.