Module 1 · Lesson 3 of 5
Human Review and When It Is Required
GuideHerd Academy
Subscribe to access this lesson.
GuideHerd Academy gives your whole firm access to AI workflow training, monthly updates, and a prompt and template library.
The model is simple
AI prepares. People approve.
This is not a policy suggestion — it is a description of how every GuideHerd workflow is designed. The AI handles the drafting, summarizing, organizing, and first-pass analysis. A qualified person reviews the output and decides what to do with it. Nothing goes to a client, into a file, or out the door without that review step.
This lesson explains what that review looks like, which categories always require it, and what the guardrails are for legal and professional services work specifically.
What human review means in practice
Human review is not skimming the output to make sure it looks fine. It is reading the output with enough attention to catch errors, wrong assumptions, missing information, and scope drift — the failure modes from Lesson 2.
For most AI-assisted workflows, review means checking that:
- The output addresses what was actually asked
- No specific facts, figures, or citations appear that you haven't verified
- The content is appropriate for the intended recipient or use
- Nothing has been added that goes beyond the scope of what the workflow was supposed to do
- Your professional judgment, not the AI's output, is driving the conclusion
The review step is not optional overhead. It is the point of the workflow. The AI makes the review faster. It does not replace it.
Client-facing drafts always require review
Any output that will be sent to a client, shared externally, or placed in a client file requires review by a qualified person before it goes out. This includes:
- Emails and letters drafted with AI assistance
- Summaries of client matters or intake information
- Acknowledgments, notices, or follow-up communications
- Anything that will be presented as the firm's work product
The fact that the output was produced by an AI workflow does not reduce the firm's responsibility for its accuracy and appropriateness. The firm owns the output from the moment a qualified person approves it.
High-risk categories always require review
Some categories carry higher stakes and require review regardless of how routine the task appears:
- Conflict checks. AI can assist with organizing intake information and flagging potential matches. A qualified person makes the conflict determination. The AI does not decide whether a conflict exists.
- Legal filings and formal documents. Any document that will be filed, submitted, or executed requires review by the responsible professional.
- Privilege and confidentiality assessments. AI tools do not make determinations about privilege or confidentiality. Those decisions belong to a qualified person.
- Medical, financial, or regulated professional advice. AI tools assist with workflow steps in these areas. They do not provide the regulated professional judgment.
- Client communication on substantive matters. Communications that address the substance of a client's legal, financial, or professional situation require review before they are sent.
Legal and professional services guardrails
GuideHerd training and workflows are operational and administrative. They are designed to help your team work more efficiently — not to replace the professional judgment that your firm provides to clients.
Specifically:
- GuideHerd does not provide legal advice and its tools are not designed to do so
- GuideHerd does not make conflict decisions — a qualified person does, using AI-assisted intake as one input
- GuideHerd does not create attorney-client relationships
- GuideHerd workflows do not send client communications without human approval built into the process
- Training focuses on safe use, human review, confidentiality awareness, and workflow consistency
If your team is ever uncertain about whether something needs review, the answer is yes. The workflows are designed so that review is the default, not the exception.
Building the review habit
The best teams treat review as a step in the workflow, not an add-on at the end. This means the review step is assigned to a specific person, the criteria for what to check are written down, and the person doing the review has enough context to catch errors — not just enough time to skim.
The checklist at the end of this lesson is a starting point. Your firm's SOPs will make it specific to the workflows you actually run.