The short answer
A law firm should choose its first AI use cases by comparing workflow value, information access, review effort, and the consequences of an incorrect answer. Start with a defined task, approved source material, and a named owner. Test the complete workflow, including verification, before expanding to more users or responsibilities.
What makes a useful first AI use case?
Start with a task people can describe precisely. Preparing an internal meeting brief from approved documents gives a team a clearer starting point than a broad ambition to “use AI across the firm.” You can identify the source material, review the result, and compare the effort with the current process.
A useful first trial also has a person who wants to improve the workflow and has time to evaluate it. Without that owner, even a technically sound tool can sit unused while everyone waits for someone else to decide whether it helps.
Microsoft's AI planning guidance recommends assessing business value, feasibility, and organizational readiness when prioritizing opportunities. For a law firm, applying that approach means bringing the people who do the work together with knowledge management, technology, and the appropriate risk reviewers. Microsoft's business planning guidance
Ask the workflow owner to walk through a recent example. Where did they look for information? Which material did they trust? What did they have to clarify with a colleague? Where did the work wait for review?
Those details help distinguish a drafting problem from an information-access problem. Each needs a different design.
Which workflows belong on the initial shortlist?
Consider a range of candidate tasks before settling on a tool. Internal knowledge retrieval and business operations deserve a place in the discussion alongside work performed by attorneys.
| Candidate workflow | Potential value to test | Boundary to define |
|---|---|---|
| Find approved internal policies or guidance | Less time spent locating the right source | Current versions, document ownership, and access |
| Prepare an internal meeting brief | Less preparation effort with useful source references | Approved inputs, audience, and review before distribution |
| Draft an internal update from selected materials | A faster first draft | Fact checking, omissions, and final author responsibility |
| Locate approved precedent materials | More efficient discovery of relevant documents | Matter restrictions, suitability, and expert review |
| Answer questions about firm operations | Faster access to agreed business information | Metric definitions, data freshness, and who can see the answer |
| Assemble a draft response to a recurring business request | More consistent preparation | Approved language, source provenance, and approval steps |
These are examples to evaluate, not claims about what any particular firm has deployed. Their suitability depends on the firm's systems, policies, and the information involved.
Keep the first shortlist short enough to examine properly. A workflow that sounds routine can depend on several hidden decisions. A brief may need to distinguish internal working assumptions from statements approved for a client. A document search may need to exclude material that the user can technically open but shouldn't reuse for that purpose.
How do confidentiality and permissions change the decision?
Define the allowed information before testing with live material. Identify where it resides, who owns it, which users should have access, and what restrictions apply to its use. Have the firm's appropriate reviewers determine which client requirements and internal policies affect the trial.
Microsoft states that Copilot respects existing user permissions. That makes permission quality part of the readiness work: access controls need to represent the firm's intended boundaries before a wider search or conversational interface makes content easier to discover. Microsoft Copilot security
Test access with representative user roles. Include someone who should see a document and someone who should not. Check the actual experience, including search results and generated responses, rather than relying only on a configuration screenshot.
If the proposed workflow uses a document management system or another external application, assess that connection separately. Don't assume the Microsoft 365 configuration settles the permissions, retention, or data handling of every connected tool.
Review the exact product and agent being evaluated. Microsoft documents data handling and the permissions required by agents; those details are part of selecting an appropriate configuration. Microsoft Copilot data, privacy, and security
How much human review should the pilot include?
Specify what the reviewer must check and how they can check it. For a draft internal brief, that could include names, dates, factual statements, omissions, and whether each source supports the summary. For a precedent-search trial, relevance and suitability need separate review.
A source link is useful only if the reviewer can open it and confirm that it supports the statement. Include that check in the trial. Also test what happens when sources conflict or the answer isn't available.
For attorney-facing content, have the responsible attorneys define the substantive review standard. A general productivity pilot doesn't establish that a tool is suitable for legal research, advice, or filings. Evaluate any such proposed use on its own terms with the firm's designated reviewers.
Keep externally distributed material behind an explicit approval step during the initial trial. If the future goal includes actions such as sending communications or updating records, assess that additional authority separately.
How do you measure whether the workflow actually improves?
Measure the work through completion. Time spent generating a first draft is only one part of the task. Include checking sources, correcting errors, and preparing the result for its intended audience.
For an internal briefing pilot, record preparation time, review time, factual corrections, and whether the finished brief answers the questions the reader needs addressed. Note failures as specifically as successes. “Wrong date from an older document” tells the team more than “the answer wasn't good.”
Use representative examples, including difficult ones. If the trial only contains clean documents with obvious answers, it won't tell you much about the work people struggle with today.
Agree on the decision before the pilot ends: continue, adjust the scope, or stop. A workflow that produces modest drafting savings but adds substantial verification effort may need a different approach. Record what the team learned so the next initiative can use it.
What should the firm bring to an AI Strategy Day?
Bring a few concrete workflows and people who understand them. Include a sponsor who can make decisions, the business or practice owner, and counterparts responsible for technology and information access. Add the firm's appropriate risk reviewers where the proposed work requires them.
For each idea, bring a description of the task, approved sample materials, the current process, and the outcome you want to improve. Anonymized or synthetic examples can help the team discuss a workflow before live information is approved for use.
Use the session to compare the opportunities and identify unresolved questions. A valuable next step might be a focused pilot, a permissions review, or work to organize a source collection before introducing AI.
ArchitectNow designs and delivers AI, data, and cloud solutions on the Microsoft stack. An AI Strategy Day provides a setting to examine the options and prioritize the next steps with the people responsible for making them work.
Discuss an AI Strategy Day with ArchitectNow and bring the workflows your firm wants to evaluate.
Common questions
Should a law firm start with an attorney-facing use case?
Compare it with internal knowledge and operational workflows. Choose based on value, readiness, review requirements, and ownership rather than visibility alone.
Does respecting user permissions eliminate confidentiality concerns?
Permissions are one part of the design. The firm still needs to assess intended use, source selection, connected systems, and the restrictions applicable to the proposed workflow.
What should happen when the AI can't find a supported answer?
The workflow should make missing information clear and route the question to a person or approved source. Include unanswered and ambiguous questions in the test set.