How to create an internal generative AI use policy
Hello, this is Legal Agent.
Drafting an internal generative AI policy often reveals conflicting goals once an organization clarifies who the document is intended to guide. A policy built solely around prohibitions rarely achieves compliance, because a list of banned actions fails to explain what employees are permitted to do, what specific inputs are strictly off-limits, when human review is required, how new tools are vetted, or what steps to take during an incident.
Limitations of prohibition-only guidelines
Instructing staff not to upload "confidential information" leaves difficult judgments to individual workers. Employees cannot apply that general rule without knowing whether masked customer names, excerpts of commercial agreements, internal meeting minutes, or proprietary source code are acceptable to input. Concrete operational examples and clear categories are what make an internal policy actionable rather than purely decorative.
The operational need for unified rules
Because generative AI tools are readily accessible through individual user accounts, sensitive customer data, unreleased financial results, and trade secrets can reach external servers without management oversight. Furthermore, because AI outputs sound fluent and authoritative, factual inaccuracies can easily slip into legal drafts, personnel reviews, or client communications. In the absence of a unified policy, departments adopt disparate standards: sales teams generate client proposals, marketing drafts promotional copy, HR produces job listings and review commentary, and engineering writes code. While each practice appears reasonable in isolation, the company loses track of its aggregate legal and technical exposure.
Practical policy structure around daily workflows
To remain effective over time, the definition of covered systems should encompass future generative technologies rather than listing current brand names individually. A two-tier risk model helps streamline routine tasks: tasks such as paraphrasing, translation, or summarizing public information can follow a simpler process where their data and intended use are low risk, while sensitive activities involving personal data, legal analysis, or external publication require structured oversight. Policies should explicitly list prohibited inputs, provide an approval procedure for justified exceptions, and address personal account usage directly, because training-use conditions can differ between an approved corporate account and an employee's personal free or paid plan. The actual plan and settings need to be checked.