Agentic AI for Legal Teams: From Drafting to Doing
Most in-house attorneys now know predictive and generative AI. Agentic AI is the next step. It doesn't stop at producing text in a chat window. It can plan, retrieve data, use tools, and execute tasks across your tech stack.
The term "agentic" is overused. Many products with that label are just advanced automation with a new coat of paint. That gap between branding and reality slows adoption and makes risk assessments messy. Legal teams need a cleaner way to evaluate these systems.
What Agentic AI Actually Does
Generative AI helps you draft. Agentic AI takes action. Think multistep workflows that place orders, update systems, send emails, review contracts, or run compliance checks-without constant human prompting.
For legal ops, this means moving beyond memos and markups into execution: routing agreements for signature, checking clause libraries, flagging nonstandard terms, logging approvals, and updating case systems. The promise is efficiency where generative tools hit a ceiling.
Why Legal Should Care Now
Legal departments are pressured to deliver more with tight budgets. Many teams tried generative AI and saw modest productivity but little bottom-line impact. Agentic AI can close that gap by automating the work between drafts: the steps that actually move matters forward.
That said, more autonomy also means more exposure. If a tool can act, it can act incorrectly. Your approach needs to be deliberate.
The Autonomy Spectrum: Your Core Risk Lens
Skip the vendor marketing. Anchor your assessment in two questions: How much autonomy does the system have? How much control do humans keep? Those answers place a tool on an autonomy spectrum and define your risk posture.
- Assistive AI: Low autonomy, high human control. Suggests terms, drafts language, highlights issues.
- Supervised agents: Medium autonomy, human approval gates. Proposes actions, executes once approved.
- Semi-autonomous agents: Executes defined workflows within guardrails. Limited overrides needed.
- Fully agentic systems: High autonomy, minimal oversight. Can initiate and complete workflows across systems.
Risk increases disproportionately as autonomy grows. A recommender that suggests clause edits is low risk. An agent that executes binding agreements or changes system permissions without review is a different tier entirely.
Unique Risks to Flag Early
- Liability and contract formation: Unauthorized acceptance, misrouted or premature signatures, and unintended offer/acceptance through automated communications.
- Regulatory exposure: Automated and consequential decisions may trigger specific compliance duties, documentation, and impact assessments.
- Security and data handling: Expanded system permissions, tool chaining, and third-party connectors widen the attack surface.
- Operational harm: Bad actions at speed-bulk emails, mass updates, data deletion-can cause outsized damage.
- Auditability: Weak logs make incident response and defensibility harder.
If your organization aligns to an AI governance framework, map agentic use cases to it upfront. Two useful references: the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and the EU's AI Act approach to risk tiers and obligations.
The Two Questions That Drive Better Decisions
Use these to sort hype from reality and calibrate controls:
- How much autonomy? Does the system only suggest actions, or can it execute multistep workflows across integrated apps without approval?
- How much human control? What guardrails, approval gates, and fail-safes exist? Can you intervene before irreversible actions? Are there complete, immutable audit trails?
This framing helps you avoid overregulating low-risk tools (like an AI spam filter) and underestimating high-risk ones (like an interview bot or auto-execution contract agent). It also makes your AI risk assessments faster and more defensible.
Practical Controls by Autonomy Level
- Assistive AI: Content quality checks, citation requirements, hallucination safeguards, logging of prompts/outputs.
- Supervised agents: Human-in-the-loop approvals, granular permissions, rate limits, test environments, audit logs.
- Semi-autonomous: Strong segregation of duties, transaction caps, rollback plans, change management, continuous monitoring.
- Fully agentic: Formal governance, pre-deployment risk assessments, incident playbooks, red-teaming, and executive sign-off.
Use Cases That Can Return Value
- Contracting: Intake triage, clause matching, deviation flags, approval routing, playbook enforcement, structured metadata capture.
- Compliance: Policy checks, audit scheduling, evidence collection, control testing, reporting, escalation workflows.
- Litigation and investigations: Matter setup, legal hold notices, deadline tracking, data pulls with approvals, pattern alerts.
- Operations: Ticket classification, knowledge retrieval with citations, KPI dashboards, outside counsel onboarding tasks.
Build, Buy, or Partner?
Build if you have engineering support, a clear use case, and strong internal governance. You'll get precise control but carry full maintenance and security ownership.
Buy if time-to-value matters and the vendor supports your approval gates, logs, and permission model. Push for sandbox testing and event-level audit exports.
Partner if your process is complex, spans multiple systems, or needs change management. A services partner can help with design, integrations, and governance.
Pilot Blueprint for Legal Teams
- Define scope: One workflow, one system of record, clear success metrics (cycle time, error rate, approvals avoided).
- Set guardrails: Least-privilege access, human approvals for irreversible steps, rate limits, and full logging.
- Test in stages: Dry runs in a sandbox, then shadow mode (no actions), then limited production with caps.
- Measure and iterate: Track incidents, false positives/negatives, overrides, and user feedback.
- Decide go/no-go: Promote, pause, or roll back based on risk-adjusted ROI.
Vendor Diligence: Questions That Matter
- What actions can the agent take without approval? Can that be configured per role?
- How are permissions scoped across connected apps and APIs? Any credential vaulting?
- Is there an immutable, event-level audit trail with timestamps, prompts, outputs, and actions?
- Are rollback mechanisms available for each action type? How fast?
- What monitoring and alerting exists for abnormal behavior or drift?
- How is third-party data handled, retained, and deleted? Can we set data residency and retention?
- What red-teaming or independent assessments have been performed? Can we see reports?
Governance Without Bottlenecks
Create a lightweight intake for AI use cases. Tag each by autonomy level, data sensitivity, and business impact. For low-risk tools, set fast-track approvals. For higher risk, require a short risk assessment, a pilot plan, and success metrics.
Keep your policy practical: clear rules for approvals, roles and responsibilities, logging standards, incident response, and vendor requirements. Align with your privacy and security programs to avoid duplicate reviews.
The Bottom Line
Agentic AI won't replace legal judgment. It will compress the repetitive work between decisions. If you anchor on autonomy and control, you can move faster on low-risk wins and apply stronger governance where it counts.
The goal isn't to avoid these tools-it's to deploy them where they deliver meaningful results with the right safeguards.
Further Learning
If you're building internal literacy for your team, explore practical training paths by role at Complete AI Training. Focus on courses that cover workflow automation, approvals, logging, and risk assessment.
Your membership also unlocks:
