AI flagged 20 problems in a legal doc. None of them were real problems.
A senior executive used an AI, Claude, to review a legal document that had a minor, pre-approved clause update. Without context, the AI flagged over 20 "issues," many of which were standard clauses. This led the executive to escalate a non-issue, forcing the original reviewers to defend their work. The proposed solution is to ban AI from sensitive tasks rather than developing a proper process for its use, prompting a discussion on how others are handling similar situations.
- Published
- Sep 7, 2026, 18:10
- Source type
- Dev community
- Tier
- Community
- Source status
- Healthy
Times shown in UTC
More details
So legal team updated one clause in an existing doc, small change, already reviewed and approved, nothing new.
Then a senior exec who wasn't in the loop on any of this decides to run the whole doc through claude, just to "check it." No context, didn't know it was just a minor update to something that already existed and published. AI comes back with like 20+ "issues," most of which are just standard clauses that are supposed to be in there. Exec escalated this org-wide as if something had gone wrong, putting the actual reviewers in the position of defending a non-issue. Now the fix on the table is banning AI from anything sensitive instead of building an actual process.
How you guys are dealing this with? any workaround tools/new AI rules in org/going back to manual process of reviewing with concerned teams?