GCs Guide to Generative AI: Law360's 5 Step Governance Playbook

Generative AI is no longer a novelty for legal teams — it is an operational imperative that General Counsel must shepherd from curiosity to disciplined production use, and Law360’s five‑step playbook crystallizes the practical route: secure executive sponsorship and measurable targets, run narrow high‑value pilots, embed cross‑functional governance, insist on stringent procurement protections, and make human verification mandatory at every outward‑facing gate.

Background / Overview​

Generative AI has moved rapidly from vendor decks and proofs‑of‑concept into routine legal activities — drafting, precedent search, transcript summarization and matter triage — but this shift brings acute legal and reputational risks as well as productivity upside. Law360’s framework translates the abstract promise of AI into a pragmatic operating model for GCs and legal operations: treat AI as a program, not a product, and marry pilots with governance, procurement controls and enforced human‑in‑the‑loop checks.
Two contextual facts should guide every GC from day one. First, courts and regulators are already responding to misuse: multiple federal and state judges have sanctioned filings that contained fabricated case citations or other AI‑generated falsehoods, underscoring that verification failures can carry real sanctions. Mata v. Avianca is an early, high‑profile example of such sanctions, and the trend has continued into 2024 and 2025 with additional fines and disciplinary referrals. Second, enterprise platforms now provide meaningful technical guardrails — tenant‑scoped processing, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), Conditional Access and audit logging — that materially reduce legal exposure when configured correctly. Microsoft’s documentation for Copilot and the Copilot Control System explicitly describes tenant isolation, Purview integration and non‑use of enterprise data for training under commercial data protection commitments; these capabilities matter because they make contractual promises enforceable in practice.

---

Why the five‑step approach matters for GCs​

Law360’s five steps are not a checklist of nice‑to‑have items; they form an interlocking operating model. Put bluntly: procurement protections without governance are brittle; pilots without measurement are non‑decisions; and human verification without technical controls is expensive and error prone. The five steps give legal teams levers they can measure, negotiate and audit.
Key strengths of the model:

• Actionability — the playbook provides a 90–180 day roadmap so pilots convert to governed deployments rather than one‑off demos.
• Risk focus — procurement and no‑retrain language are front‑and‑center, reflecting the profession’s duty of confidentiality.
• Operational realism — it requires telemetry, exportable logs and enforced human sign‑offs, not vendor oral assurances.

These are the precise levers GCs can use to preserve professional obligations while extracting productivity gains.

---

The five steps, unpacked​

1. Secure executive sponsorship and measurable targets​

Executive sponsorship converts pilot momentum into sustained resource allocation. A CEO or GC mandate is necessary but insufficient; pair it with clear KPIs and timelines so pilots have an accountable home. Typical KPIs to demand and monitor include:

• Reduction in time‑to‑first‑draft for routine documents.
• Partner review time per deliverable.
• Verification time and error/correction rates.
• Number of DLP incidents or blocked prompt submissions.

Make adoption metrics quality‑adjusted: measure outcomes (time saved, fewer rework cycles), not just installs or seat counts. Without measurable targets, pilots drift into shadow usage or become vendor‑driven technology projects rather than a legal operations initiative.

2. Start with high‑value, low‑risk pilots​

Choose safe landing zones: meeting/transcript summarization, first‑draft memos, clause extraction and precedent triage are common and controllable starting points. Run short, bounded sandboxes (4–8 weeks) using redacted or synthetic data and log every prompt and response. Define baseline metrics and require documented human verification for any output intended for external reliance. These narrow pilots produce defensible evidence of value and risk.
Pilot checklist:

• Define scope and baseline KPIs before coding begins.
• Use redacted or synthetic data for initial validation.
• Log all prompt/response pairs with user IDs and timestamps.
• Lock down access with SSO, MFA and Conditional Access.
• Require human sign‑off for any material that leaves the sandbox.

3. Build cross‑functional governance​

A governance body should include partners, practice leads, IT/security, procurement, knowledge management and senior paralegals. Responsibilities must be explicit:

• Policy on what data can be used in experiments.
• Roles: model owner, steward, human verifier.
• Escalation paths for incidents.
• Human‑to‑agent ratios and mandatory checkpoint controls.

Embedding governance early avoids the “pilot but no production” trap and gives skeptics a formal space to raise issues — not just a string of memos.

4. Insist on procurement protections that matter​

For legal work, contract language is not optional theater — it is the gatekeeper of client confidentiality. Minimum contractual protections recommended by Law360 and practitioners include:

• Exportable, machine‑readable logs of prompts, responses, user IDs and timestamps.
• Explicit no‑retrain clauses or an auditable opt‑in mechanism for retraining on customer data.
• Deletion and egress guarantees with verifiable evidence.
• Current third‑party attestations such as SOC 2 and ISO 27001.
• Incident response SLAs with notification timelines.

If a vendor will not commit in writing to these protections, treat that refusal as a material red flag. A handshake promise is not enough for matters involving PII, privileged or strategic legal material.

5. Bake human verification into workflows​

Human‑in‑the‑loop is not optional — it is the profession’s last line of defence. Require enforced process controls: role‑based approvals, checklists, mandatory sign‑offs and competency demonstrations for anyone who will file or publish AI‑assisted work. Training must be robust, role‑based and include testing on hallucination detection and prompt hygiene. The requirement should be enforced by process, not merely guidance.

---

Windows‑centric technical guardrails GCs should require​

For legal teams operating inside Microsoft 365 and Windows ecosystems, several configurable controls materially reduce leakage risk and help satisfy procurement obligations:

• Conditional Access and Multi‑Factor Authentication — ensure only verified identities can access AI features.
• Endpoint Data Loss Prevention (DLP) — block paste actions of confidential material from endpoints to public model endpoints; configure sensitivity labels to prevent accidental exposure.
• Tenant grounding and Purview integration — enable tenant‑scoped Copilot processing and use Purview policies to keep prompts/responses under enterprise control and retention policies. Microsoft documents that Copilot operates within a user’s tenant and honors Entra ID and Purview controls.
• Centralized logging and observability — capture model version, token usage, user IDs and timestamps in an auditable store for eDiscovery and incident analysis.

These technical controls are complementary to contract language; together they make enforcement possible and produce the telemetry auditors and regulators will expect. Microsoft’s published guidance for Copilot and the Copilot Control System explains much of this recommended configuration and the underlying security assurances.

---

Measurement, KPIs and the 90–180 day playbook​

A short, prescriptive cadence keeps pilots honest and measurable. A representative playbook:

• Phase 0 — Assess & Prioritize (Weeks 0–4): Inventory routine tasks, score by frequency and legal risk, and run a readiness checklist (data hygiene, identity posture, connectors, DLP posture).
• Phase 1 — Sandbox Pilots (Weeks 4–12): Run 1–3 pilots on redacted or synthetic data. Log everything. Define baseline KPIs: time‑to‑first‑draft, partner review time, error/correction rate, verification burden.
• Phase 2 — Secure Governance & Procurement (concurrent): Assemble the AI accountability board and negotiate vendor addenda with no‑retrain and exportable log clauses. Treat refusal as a red flag.
• Phase 3 — Pilot Measurement & Verification (Weeks 12–26): Require human sign‑offs for external use, instrument telemetry, and decide go/no‑go with data.
• Phase 4 — Harden & Scale (Months 6+): Convert successful pilots into templated patterns (identity, data access, monitoring), maintain audit cadence and build runbooks.

This sequence minimizes legal exposure while generating the documentation and controls that sophisticated clients and regulators will expect.

---

Legal risk and the reality of sanctions — a sharp reminder​

Generative AI can hallucinate plausible but false legal authorities. Courts have already punished lawyers who failed to verify AI outputs. Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. in 2023 resulted in sanctions for attorneys who submitted briefs containing fabricated citations generated by ChatGPT; similar sanctions and disciplinary referrals have followed in multiple cases and jurisdictions. These outcomes make human verification and log retention non‑negotiable from an ethical and practical standpoint. GCs should treat this not as theory but as precedent: failure to document verification steps or to preserve prompt/response logs can convert an internal error into a professional discipline or court fine. That legal reality is the strongest single reason to demand exportable logs, retention metadata and mandatory verification workflows from day one.

---

Procurement playbook — concrete clauses and negotiation posture​

When negotiating with vendors, GCs and procurement teams should insist on the following contractual elements as baseline conditions:

• No‑retrain / Controlled retraining — explicit contractual prohibition on using matter data to train vendor models unless the customer gives auditable, written consent.
• Exportable prompts & responses — machine‑readable logs with user IDs, timestamps and model version metadata.
• Deletion and egress guarantees — contractual warranty for data deletion and verifiable egress mechanisms on offboarding.
• Attestations — current SOC 2 and ISO 27001 (or equivalent) reports and third‑party penetration testing evidence.
• Incident response & SLA — timelines and obligations for notification plus forensic access to logs for audits and litigation needs.

Treat vendor reluctance to accept these items as a material negotiation posture. For high‑risk matters, limit vendor access or use private, tenant‑grounded enterprise models. Remember that large hyperscalers (with strong enterprise controls) can simplify compliance but do not replace negotiated contractual rights.

---

Human factors, training and supervision​

Training matters more than feature lists. A defensible program includes:

• Role‑based modules on prompt hygiene, hallucination detection, verification standards and incident reporting.
• Competency demonstrations or micro‑certifications for anyone who will sign off on AI‑assisted work.
• Periodic QA reviews to detect model drift and systemic failure modes.

Design training to be demonstrable (CLE‑style modules or internal certification) and tie competency to the right to sign off. Without demonstrable training and sign‑off records, firms risk both ethical exposure and inconsistent verification practices.

---

Hidden costs and the productivity paradox​

Generative AI produces headline speed gains, but creating a sustainable program requires investment in data plumbing, MLOps, verification labor and FinOps for inference costs. Early projects that skip these investments often face cost overruns or rework. Measure TCO carefully: license fees are only the beginning; observation, monitoring and verification labor are the recurring costs that determine whether AI becomes a productivity multiplier or a maintenance sink.

---

Scaling with discipline — tools and organizational changes​

When pilots succeed, convert them into templated patterns:

• Identity and RBAC templates for roles that can use copilots.
• Standardized runbooks for incident response and model upgrades.
• An agent registry with metadata (owner, sources, last audit date, risk profile).
• Internal maker programs and micro‑certifications to seed reuse safely.

Treat AI integration as an ongoing capability: continuous measurement, budgeted lifecycle spend and a steering committee with authority to approve new risk profiles.

---

What to avoid — common failure modes​

• Rolling out a blanket mandate to “use AI” without training and capacity changes.
• Treating adoption numbers (seats) as success metrics rather than quality‑adjusted outcomes.
• Delegating governance entirely to vendors — procurement and policy ownership must remain internal.
• Ignoring portability and egress: vendor lock‑in is costly to unwind if audits or data egress become necessary.

---

Final analysis — strengths, blind spots and practical recommendations​

Law360’s five‑step framework is an effective operational blueprint for GCs: it is actionable, governance‑centric and technically realistic. Its chief strengths are the insistence on measurable pilots, cross‑functional governance and enforceable procurement terms.
However, practical execution exposes two persistent blind spots:

• Resource assumptions: the framework presumes access to IT/security and procurement bandwidth; smaller in‑house teams will need partner support or more modest pilots.
• Regulatory nuance: duties of supervision and privacy regimes vary by jurisdiction; one size does not fit all. Local bar opinions and privacy frameworks must inform verification and retention policies.

Concrete, immediate recommendations for GCs:

• Commission a 30‑day readiness assessment (data, identity, DLP posture).
• Run two short pilots: one low‑risk broad use (e.g., Copilot for internal drafting), one targeted high‑impact workflow (e.g., transcript summarization). Log everything.
• Negotiate vendor addenda with exportable logs, no‑retrain clauses and deletion guarantees before any matter data is shared. Treat refusal as a deal breaker for production access.
• Configure Microsoft‑specific controls if you operate on Microsoft 365: Conditional Access, Endpoint DLP, Purview sensitivity labels and tenant grounding for Copilot. Microsoft documentation supports these controls and their security guarantees.
• Make human verification mandatory through process controls and competency gates, and preserve verification logs as part of the matter record.

---

The choice for General Counsel is not whether to experiment with generative AI — that experimentation is already happening across firms and corporate legal teams — but whether to do so responsibly. Law360’s five‑step playbook gives GCs the levers to capture productivity sustainably: leadership sponsorship, narrow pilots, cross‑functional governance, ironclad procurement protections, and enforced human verification. Implemented together, with the technical controls and contractual rights described above, they allow legal teams to modernize while preserving client confidentiality, professional competence and institutional trust.

---

Source: Law360 5 Steps For GCs To Drive Generative AI Experimentation