AI law, answered.

An AI law firm advises organizations on the legal rules that apply to building, deploying, and using artificial intelligence — including regulatory compliance (EU AI Act, U.S. state AI laws, NIST AI RMF), data privacy, intellectual property, contracts, bias and accountability obligations, and AI-related litigation or investigations. AI Law Safe focuses exclusively on these issues across the full AI lifecycle.

The EU AI Act applies to providers and deployers of AI systems placed on the EU market or whose output is used in the EU, with obligations phasing in by risk tier. High-risk system requirements (conformity assessment, risk management, technical documentation, human oversight) bite on a staged timeline, while prohibitions and AI literacy duties apply earlier. If your product serves EU users or your model output is used in the EU, you should map your systems to risk categories now and build conformity evidence early.

Under ABA Formal Opinion 512 and most state ethics rules, lawyers may use generative AI if they competence-test the tool, disclose or obtain informed consent where appropriate, protect client confidences, ensure human review of AI output, and supervise vendors. In practice that means a written AI use policy, approved tool lists, confidentiality controls (no pasting privileged material into consumer tools without safeguards), and a human-in-the-loop review workflow for any AI-generated work product.

The AI Law Safe Framework™ is our six-phase governance methodology: Discover & Map (inventory AI systems), Assess & Classify (risk-tier under EU AI Act, NIST, and sector rules), Govern & Document (policies, oversight, audit trails), Test & Mitigate (bias, security, hallucination testing), Deploy & Monitor (continuous compliance and incident response), and Certify & Communicate (third-party validation and stakeholder transparency). It turns regulatory complexity into a repeatable operating program.

Texas's TRAIGA framework provides a compliance-oriented safe harbor for deployers who follow recognized risk management practices in defined circumstances. It is not blanket immunity: eligibility depends on meeting the statutory conditions, maintaining documentation, and staying within the covered use cases. Organizations operating in Texas should map TRAIGA requirements alongside federal and other state obligations rather than treating the safe harbor as a substitute for a full AI governance program.

Liability for agentic AI typically follows existing agency, product liability, negligence, and contract principles — but it is still being tested. Depending on the facts, responsibility can attach to the model developer, the deployer who configured goals and tools, the integrator who set permissions, or the enterprise that left a human out of the loop. The practical defense is documented human oversight, scoped tool permissions, monitoring, and contracts that allocate risk before an incident occurs.

Engagements range from fixed-fee gap analyses and policy packages to monthly retainers for ongoing governance and outside counsel roles. Scope depends on the number and risk tier of AI systems, jurisdictions involved, and whether you need documentation, contracts, diligence, or defense. We begin every engagement with a confidential AI risk assessment so you get a clear scope and fee range before committing.

Highest urgency typically falls on healthcare, financial services, employment and HR tech, education, insurance, critical infrastructure, and government contractors — anywhere AI drives high-risk decisions about people, money, safety, or rights. Consumer apps with large-scale profiling, biometrics, or content generation also face growing state-law and platform obligations. If your AI influences access to jobs, credit, housing, healthcare, or legal rights, specialized counsel should be engaged early.