Shadow AI is a visibility problem
One of the more useful phrases showing up in recent reporting is “shadow AI.” The term sounds dramatic, but the underlying issue is plain enough. It describes AI use that is happening inside an organization without enough visibility, approval, policy structure, or supervision around it.
In a law firm, that deserves attention quickly because the stakes are different from a generic office setting. The issue is not simply that someone may be using a new tool without permission. The issue is that attorneys or staff may be putting client information, work product, drafts, internal knowledge, or legal reasoning into systems leadership has not evaluated and may not even know are being used.
The legal market now seems far enough along that this should be treated as a live management issue, not a speculative fear. Recent legal-industry reporting says that individual use of generative AI has already become common, while firm-level governance remains uneven. Many firms still lack formal policies, meaningful training, or an actively enforced structure for responsible use. That is exactly the condition in which unmanaged use tends to spread.
This is also why I do not think the first leadership question should be “Which AI product should we buy?” or even “Do we need a formal AI initiative?” The more immediate question is whether the firm has a reliable picture of how AI is already entering the work.
That is a visibility problem.
It is tempting to believe the answer is prohibition. If leadership bans AI tools, then the issue is solved. But bar guidance and broader workplace reporting both point in the opposite direction. Blanket bans are often unrealistic, especially when AI is already embedded in common software and when attorneys feel pressure to work more efficiently. If the firm offers no supervised path, people often create their own unsupervised one. The result is not safety. The result is hidden use.
That is why the first step in responsible adoption should be visibility before control.
A managing partner does not need to begin with a speech about innovation. The better place to start is with a set of practical questions. What tools are people already using? Are those tools public, embedded, firm-licensed, or personally chosen? What kinds of tasks are they using them for? Is client information going into them? Has anyone explained what is acceptable, restricted, or prohibited? Does the firm know enough about current practice to distinguish a harmless experiment from a serious confidentiality problem?
Those are not glamorous questions, but they are serious ones. They also create a much better starting point than another disconnected pilot.
This matters because law firms can now be pulled in two different kinds of disorder at once. One is visible disorder, where the firm runs too many pilots, watches too many demos, and loses discipline in a cloud of experimentation. The other is invisible disorder, where individual use spreads quietly through side doors and leadership discovers too late that practice has moved faster than supervision.
Both are governance problems. Neither is solved by vendor enthusiasm.
The right first step is a clearer picture of reality inside the firm. Once that picture exists, leadership can choose a workflow, define what improvement would count, apply the professional guardrails, and create one supervised path forward. But without visibility, the rest of that sequence becomes guesswork.
That is why I think shadow AI use should not be framed mainly as a cautionary tale. It should be framed as a leadership visibility problem. The firm does not need to panic. It does need to know what is already happening, and it needs a disciplined way to bring that activity into the open where it can be supervised, evaluated, and explained.
That is a much better first move than pretending the issue is not there.
I created the AI Use Visibility Check helps to surface informal or unmanaged AI use before it becomes a confidentiality, supervision, or policy problem.
Rex C. Anderson
The retired attorney law firms call about AI Adoption
Forwarded to you?
Subscribe for direct delivery of future articles.