Law firms are increasingly experimenting with AI for summarizing documents, drafting emails, organizing discovery, and brainstorming arguments—but the moment you paste client material into a tool, you risk disclosing confidential or privileged information. In real lawyer-to-lawyer threads on Reddit and practitioner forums, the recurring theme is simple: “Assume anything you input could be stored, reviewed, or leaked.” That doesn’t mean “never use AI.” It means you need a repeatable redaction workflow that preserves the substance you want analyzed while stripping identifiers, privileged strategy, and sensitive personal data. The checklist and examples below are designed to be practical—something you can hand to an associate or paralegal and actually use.
What to Redact Before AI: A Law Firm Checklist
First, remove client and matter identifiers—the items that instantly tie the text to a real person or entity. This includes client names (individuals and companies), subsidiaries, trade names, opposing parties, witnesses, and any uniquely identifying deal labels (“Project Falcon,” “Opal Acquisition,” etc.). In many forum discussions, lawyers note that “masking the name isn’t enough” if the fact pattern is distinctive; you also want to generalize identifying details like a rare job title, a niche location, or a small-town reference that would make the client obvious to someone familiar with the industry.
Second, redact personal data and regulated identifiers—both for privacy compliance and basic risk management. Strip out addresses, phone numbers, emails, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, passport numbers, tax IDs, bank details, medical record numbers, and anything that looks like authentication material (password reset links, API keys, tokens). Practitioners also commonly mention redacting “quiet identifiers” that get overlooked: partial account numbers, last-four digits, signature blocks, metadata in copied headers/footers, and internal file paths that include usernames or matter numbers.
Third, remove privileged strategy and internal work product unless you are certain your firm’s AI policy and tool configuration allow it (and even then, minimize). In lawyer forums, one of the most repeated cautions is not to paste in partner comments, mental impressions, settlement ranges, negotiating posture, or draft language that reveals litigation strategy—especially anything marked “Attorney-Client Privileged,” “Attorney Work Product,” “Confidential,” or “Subject to Protective Order.” Also redact internal firm information: time entries, staffing plans, conflicts notes, internal emails discussing strengths/weaknesses, and any “notes to self” that a court would later be unhappy to see disclosed.
Real-World Redaction Examples Lawyers Actually Use
Example 1: Contract review without exposing parties or deal terms. Lawyers often want AI to spot risky clauses, missing provisions, or unusual indemnities. A practical redaction replaces the parties and deal identifiers with neutral placeholders while preserving the clause language.
- Before: “This Services Agreement is between BlueRiver Medical Devices, Inc. and Sierra Logistics LLC… pricing is $2.4M over 18 months… signed by Dana K. Hughes.”
- After: “This Services Agreement is between [Vendor] and [Customer]… pricing is [Fee Amount] over [Term]… signed by [Signatory].”
Forum users frequently emphasize keeping the structure of the clause intact (definitions, cross-references, carveouts) while swapping out unique numbers if they’re not essential to the question you’re asking.
Example 2: Litigation summarization without leaking identities, protected discovery, or strategy. A common “safe-ish” use is asking AI to summarize a filing or deposition excerpt. The redaction approach lawyers describe is: keep the factual sequence, remove identifying names, and remove anything that reveals your evaluation or planned arguments.
- Before: “Deposition of Dr. Patel on May 4, 2024. Witness admits he altered the chart after speaking with defense counsel… Our theme is spoliation; target settlement is $450k.”
- After: “Deposition of [Treating Physician] on [Date]. Witness describes post-event edits to a record after discussions with counsel… [Strategy/valuation removed].”
This mirrors what practitioners say they actually do: they’ll paste only the excerpt needed for summarization and explicitly delete margin notes, settlement authority, and anything resembling mental impressions.
Example 3: Employment advice questions without exposing the employer, employee, or location. Lawyers on Reddit often talk about using AI to brainstorm issue-spotting (“What laws might apply? What questions should I ask?”). Here, the key is to convert the scenario into an anonymized fact pattern while preserving legally relevant facts.
- Before: “At Hawthorne Design Group in Portland, employee J.S. (pregnant) was placed on a PIP two weeks after requesting accommodation; manager L. Chen said ‘we need someone who can keep up.’”
- After: “At [Employer] in [State], employee [Employee] (pregnant) was placed on a performance plan shortly after requesting accommodation; manager [Manager] made a comment implying inability to perform due to pregnancy.”
Lawyers frequently recommend generalizing the jurisdiction to the level you need (state vs. city) and retaining timing, quotes, and action steps—because those details drive legal analysis—while removing anything that would allow the employee or company to be identified.
Redaction before using AI isn’t just swapping a client name for “Client.” The safest real-world approach is layered: remove direct identifiers, remove “quiet” identifiers, and strip privileged strategy and internal work product—then only share the minimum text needed to get a useful output. If your firm does this consistently (with a checklist, placeholders, and a quick peer review for high-stakes matters), AI can still help with clause spotting, neutral summaries, and issue-spotting—without turning your prompt into an accidental disclosure.