We Already Use Claude

By: Jennifer Gilligan, IntegraMSP President

That may be fine. The better question for law firms is whether they are using the right AI, with the right controls, for the right work.

“We already use Claude.”

We hear that fairly often when talking with law firms about artificial intelligence. And we get it. Claude is an impressive platform. So are ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and a growing number of AI tools attorneys are already using for research, writing, document analysis, and everyday productivity. Our response isn’t, “You shouldn’t use Claude.”

It’s simpler:

How are you using it?

Because using AI and having an AI strategy are two very different things.

AI use among Texas attorneys has more than doubled in just two years. According to the State Bar of Texas’ 2026 AI in the Practice of Law Survey, 62% of Texas attorneys now use AI, compared with 30% in 2024. Legal research was the most common use, while ethical concerns were the top reason cited by attorneys who have chosen not to use AI.

The numbers are similar nationally. The International Legal Technology Association’s newly released 2026 technology survey found that 94% of more than 500 responding law firms are using or exploring generative AI. Claude was being used or explored by 44% of firms overall and 42% of firms with fewer than 50 attorneys.

So, “We already use Claude” is not unusual.

But it also doesn’t tell us very much.

The tool is only part of the question

There is a big difference between a law firm intentionally deploying AI and individual attorneys simply finding an AI tool they like and beginning to use it.

Are attorneys using personal accounts or firm-managed accounts? Who administers those accounts? What information is being entered? Are documents being uploaded? Has anyone reviewed the platform’s security and data-handling practices? Does the firm have guidelines for what employees can and cannot put into an AI system?

Those aren’t legal questions. They are technology, security, and governance questions. And they matter regardless of whether the product is Claude, ChatGPT, Copilot, or something built specifically for the legal industry. That is also where guidance from the State Bar of Texas becomes relevant.

The Texas Bar isn’t saying “don’t use AI”

The Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas addressed generative AI in Ethics Opinion 705 in 2025. The opinion does not tell attorneys to avoid AI. In fact, it recognizes that new technology can save clients time and money.

Its practical message is much less dramatic: Attorneys are still responsible for the work they do with AI.

They should have a reasonable understanding of the technology they are using, protect confidential client information, and verify AI-generated output rather than assuming it is correct. The opinion also specifically points to understanding a provider’s security protections and training attorneys and staff on appropriate use.  For law firms, that should make the conversation fairly straightforward. The issue isn’t whether Claude is “allowed.”

The issue is whether the firm understands how its version of Claude — or any other AI platform — is being used.

Firms using Claude seriously are treating it like business technology

Hanson Bridgett provides a good example. The Am Law 200 firm announced a firmwide Claude deployment this year for attorneys and professional staff. But the rollout involved more than giving everyone an account. The firm also established a written AI-use policy, restrictions on what information could be placed into AI systems, enterprise data protections, and ongoing review of AI workflows and output.

That is the part of AI adoption that gets considerably less attention than the product itself. The question isn’t simply, “Which AI should we buy?” It is also, “What needs to surround it?”

Policies. Account management. Security controls. Training. Approved use cases. Oversight.

That may sound less exciting than the latest AI feature release, but it is what turns an employee tool into business technology. The industry appears to recognize the problem. In ILTA’s 2026 survey, generative AI appeared on the list of law firms’ biggest security challenges for the first time — and immediately ranked second, behind only user behavior.

That combination is telling.

AI is becoming mainstream at the same time firms are realizing that simply having access to it is not the same thing as managing it.

Then there is the “watermarking” question

We have also begun hearing questions from law firms about AI “watermarking,” particularly following new European Union requirements. There is some truth behind the concern, but the term can make the issue sound simpler than it is.

As of Aug. 2, the EU AI Act requires providers of certain generative AI systems to make AI-generated or manipulated content detectable through machine-readable markings. That does not necessarily mean a visible “created by AI” label will suddenly appear on an attorney’s document. The rules involve technical marking and detection requirements, and their application depends on the type of AI system and content involved.

We are not lawyers, and we are not going to tell a law firm how EU law applies to its work.

But the technology question is absolutely fair:

Do you know what your AI platform does to the content it creates?

If the answer is no, that is worth finding out.

Maybe Claude is exactly the right tool

None of this is an argument against Claude.

In fact, its adoption among law firms suggests plenty of legal organizations have found valuable ways to use it. The real issue is assuming that one AI platform should automatically handle every AI workload inside the firm.

An attorney brainstorming a presentation, summarizing internal notes, or working on general business content may have very different technology requirements than an attorney analyzing matter documents, conducting legal research, or working with sensitive client information.

Sometimes a general-purpose AI platform may be completely appropriate. Sometimes a legal-specific platform may make more sense. And sometimes the bigger problem isn’t the tool at all. It is that nobody has established rules for how any of them should be used.

That is why we think the better question has shifted.

It is no longer:

“Should our law firm use AI?”

The numbers suggest that decision has already been made.

The question now is:

Are we using the right AI, in the right environment, for the right work?

“We already use Claude” is a perfectly reasonable place to start. It just shouldn’t be where the conversation ends.

IntegraMSP helps law firms evaluate the technology and security side of AI adoption, including the tools already in use, account management, data handling, and security controls. For firms interested in exploring purpose-built legal AI, IntegraMSP also partners with Clio. Clio Work includes legal research, document analysis and matter-connected AI capabilities designed for legal workflows. IntegraMSP does not provide legal advice, and firms should consult appropriate legal counsel regarding their professional, ethical, and regulatory obligations.

Sources