The biggest AI risk may not be what the agent gets wrong.


What happens when the wrong legal data reaches AI?


A recent UK case gives a very practical answer.

In UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department / Munir, the Upper Tribunal examined the use of generative AI by legal representatives.

Among the issues raised was the fact that client letters and other confidential material had been uploaded into a public AI tool.

The Tribunal warned that putting confidential documents into an open AI system could breach client confidentiality and result in the loss of legal privilege. It also stressed that legal professionals remain responsible for how AI is used and for supervising the people using it.

This is not just a story about choosing the wrong tool.

It is a governance problem.

The question is not only “Can AI do this?”

It is also:

“
Should this AI have access to this information at all?

For legal teams, AI agents can increasingly work across:

  • contracts,
  • internal policies,
  • matter files,
  • entity information,
  • communications,
  • and company knowledge.

But not every agent should have access to every source.

And not every user should be able to use every piece of legal information through AI.

That means legal teams need to define the boundaries before the workflow starts:

  • Which information can the agent access?
  • Which data must remain restricted?
  • Who is allowed to use the agent with confidential information?
  • Can outputs be shared with another team?
  • When is lawyer approval required?
  • And who is responsible for configuring and maintaining these rules?

Without those controls, a simple AI task can become a confidentiality problem.

AI governance has to exist in the configuration, not only in the policy


A policy saying “do not share confidential information with AI” is not enough if the systems themselves still allow it.

Good governance means translating those principles into actual controls: roles, access levels, permissions, approval points and clear accountability.

That is exactly what we’ll explore in our upcoming workshop:

Claude AI Governance: How to Set Up Roles and Access Levels for AI Agents Performing Legal Tasks

We’ll open Claude’s settings and connectors and look at how to configure access, permissions and boundaries for agents working with sensitive legal and business information.

Join us on 4 November.

Legal Nodes Newsletter

Get emails from the Legal Nodes team.

Read more from Legal Nodes Newsletter

When Legal AI starts taking action, governance has to catch up For the last few years, most Legal AI use cases have followed a familiar pattern: Ask a question → get an answer → review the output. But the market has already moved beyond that model. Three months ago, Anthropic introduced Claude Tag, allowing teams to bring Claude directly into Slack, give it access to selected tools and context, and delegate work to it much like they would to another team member. Last week, the same shift...

AI can monitor the regulation. Context tells it whether it matters to you. The Legal AI race is no longer just about who has the smartest model. For legal teams, the more important question is becoming: “ Does the AI understand enough about your business to actually do the work? A regulatory update is a good example. A model may be able to summarise what changed. But before Legal can advise Product, Operations or HR, someone still needs to determine: which entity or product is affected;...

What can your regulatory feed not tell you about your business? When legal teams discuss regulatory monitoring, the conversation often starts with sources: which websites to check, which alerts to subscribe to, and how frequently to look for changes. Those are sensible questions, but they only cover the first part of the work.Once an update appears, someone still has to work out whether it applies to the company, what it could mean for a particular team or process, and whether it calls for...