AI Governance Policy
AI governance isn't just a compliance checkbox — it's core to our “Glass Box” philosophy. Every AI decision in Adjudica must be explainable, auditable, and subject to attorney oversight.
Effective Date: January 25, 2026|Version: 1.0
Our Six AI Principles
Transparency
We clearly disclose when AI is used, explain capabilities and limitations in plain language, provide source attribution for AI-generated analysis, and never disguise AI outputs as human-generated content.
Human Oversight
AI augments human judgment; it does not replace it. All AI outputs are designed for human review before use. Critical decisions remain with licensed attorneys.
Accuracy & Reliability
We continuously evaluate and improve AI accuracy, test against known-correct legal analyses, disclose accuracy metrics and known limitations, and provide mechanisms to report and correct errors.
Privacy & Confidentiality
We never use PHI, document content, or case-specific information to train AI models. We protect attorney-client privilege in our system design and secure all data with enterprise-grade protections.
Fairness & Non-Discrimination
We test for biases in AI outputs, do not design systems that discriminate based on protected characteristics, seek diverse perspectives in AI development, and address identified biases promptly.
Accountability
We maintain clear ownership of AI decisions, provide mechanisms for users to raise concerns, document AI development and deployment decisions, and accept responsibility when our systems cause harm.
Governance Framework
AI Governance Committee
Our committee reviews AI development projects, evaluates new capabilities before deployment, monitors system performance, investigates incidents, and updates policy as needed.
Composition
Meeting frequency: Quarterly, or as needed for significant decisions
AI Ethics Review
Before deploying new AI features, we conduct an AI Ethics Review assessing:
- •Potential for bias or discrimination
- •Privacy and confidentiality implications
- •Transparency and explainability
- •Impact on human oversight
- •Alignment with legal and ethical obligations
Responsible AI Development
Data Practices
- •We use only data we have rights to use
- •We do not use PHI, document content, or case-specific information for model training
- •De-identified behavioral signals may be used for platform improvement
- •We document data provenance and licensing
- •We assess training data for bias
Model Development
- •Secure development practices
- •Testing for accuracy, bias, and edge cases
- •Third-party AI providers evaluated for principle alignment
- •Prohibition on customer data training by third parties
Pre-Deployment Testing
- •Functional testing against expected use cases
- •Adversarial testing for security and misuse
- •Bias and fairness testing
- •User acceptance testing with legal professionals
Ongoing Monitoring
- •Accuracy monitoring through user feedback
- •Drift detection for model performance
- •Regular audits of AI outputs
- •Incident tracking and analysis
Transparency Commitments
User Disclosures
- •Clear indication when content is AI-generated
- •Explanation of AI capabilities and limitations
- •Access to source materials underlying AI analysis
- •Information about how your data is used
Public Transparency
- •Publishing this AI Governance Policy publicly
- •Providing annual updates on AI development
- •Disclosing material changes to AI capabilities
- •Participating in industry responsible AI discussions
Source Attribution: “Hover to Source”
Our signature feature exemplifies our transparency commitment. Every AI-generated analysis links to source documents. Users can verify AI reasoning against original materials. Citations are provided for legal references, and confidence levels are indicated where appropriate.
Prohibited AI Uses
We do not use AI for, and prohibit the use of our platform for:
- ×Autonomous Legal Decisions — AI making legal decisions without attorney review
- ×Discriminatory Profiling — Using AI to discriminate based on protected characteristics
- ×Deceptive Practices — Generating content designed to deceive courts, clients, or others
- ×Unauthorized Data Use — Using customer data for purposes not disclosed
- ×Surveillance — Monitoring individuals beyond legitimate legal purposes
- ×Manipulation — Using AI to manipulate or coerce users
Human Oversight
Attorney Review
- •Attorneys must verify AI-generated citations
- •Attorneys must confirm factual accuracy
- •Attorneys must apply professional judgment
- •Attorneys remain responsible for work product
System Design
- •AI provides recommendations, not decisions
- •Users can override or modify AI outputs
- •Critical functions require explicit human approval
- •Emergency stop capabilities for AI features
Security & Compliance
AI Security
We protect AI systems from prompt injection attacks, data poisoning, model extraction, and adversarial inputs.
Robustness
Our AI systems handle unexpected inputs gracefully, fail safely when encountering errors, maintain performance under varying conditions, and recover from failures without data loss.
Compliance Framework
Incident Response
Detection through user reports and automated systems, severity assessment, containment and feature disabling if necessary, root cause investigation, remediation, and user notification as appropriate.
Report a Concern
We take all AI-related concerns seriously. All concerns are treated confidentially.
This AI Governance Policy is effective as of January 25, 2026. Glass Box Solutions, Inc.