AI Governance Check for Professional Services Firms
A practical AI governance check for law, accounting, advisory, consulting, and client-service firms using ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, or AI-enabled SaaS.
The AI Governance Check helps professional services firms understand where AI is being used, what client data it may touch, who owns the risk, and what governance evidence is needed before adoption scales.
Practical controls before more AI rollout.
Why it matters
Professional services firms are already using AI in client work, internal research, document drafting, meeting summaries, workflow automation, and SaaS platforms. Tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, and AI-enabled SaaS can improve productivity, but they also create risk when client data, professional judgement, and unclear approval rules meet informal use.
- Client information copied into tools that have not been approved for that use
- AI outputs relied on without enough human review
- AI-enabled SaaS features switched on before ownership and evidence are clear
- Partners and leaders asked to explain AI use without a reliable governance baseline
What the check looks at
The check focuses on practical governance questions rather than a heavy transformation program. It helps leadership see where AI is active, where the highest-risk gaps sit, and what should be improved first.
- Tool visibility across ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, and AI-enabled SaaS
- Client-data boundaries for prompts, uploads, summaries, and connected apps
- Human review rules for client-facing, decision-support, and professional work
- Policy ownership, exception handling, and escalation paths
- Governance evidence that leaders can use to show AI use is deliberate and controlled
Who it is for
This page is designed for professional services firms that need a clear AI governance starting point before use becomes embedded across teams and client workflows.
- Law firms managing confidentiality, review, and matter-level AI use
- Accounting firms managing client records, workpapers, and quality review
- Advisory and consulting firms using AI in research, analysis, proposals, and delivery
- Client-service firms adopting Copilot, Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, or AI-enabled SaaS tools
What you receive
The output is intentionally practical. It is designed to help leaders decide whether to tighten minimum controls, run a deeper readiness sprint, or review a specific AI workflow before it scales.
- A scoping conversation to confirm tools, teams, client-data exposure, and priority use cases
- A concise summary of key risk themes and current governance gaps
- A recommended next step matched to the firm’s AI maturity, risk profile, and operating model
Bridge to runtime governance
Where AI use moves beyond staff prompting into AI agents, connected workflows, or automated actions, governance needs to cover runtime behaviour as well as policy. The same check can identify when a separate runtime review is needed.
- Access: what systems, files, records, or SaaS functions the AI workflow can reach
- Action: what the tool or agent can do beyond generating text
- Approval: where human approval is required before higher-risk steps
- Evidence: what logs, records, and decisions are kept
- Rollback: how the firm can stop, reverse, or contain unintended behaviour
What you walk away with.
- Initial scoping conversation
- Priority AI tool and use-case view
- Client-data boundary and human-review observations
- Policy ownership and governance evidence gap summary
- Runtime governance trigger points for agentic or connected AI workflows
- Recommended next step for readiness, runtime review, or targeted control improvement
Mapped to recognised guidance.
- AI.gov.au essential AI practices
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework
- ISO/IEC 42001 governance and monitoring concepts
- OWASP LLM and agentic risk concepts where tool access is relevant
Common questions.
Is this only for law and accounting firms?
No. It is also suitable for advisory, consulting, and other client-service firms where AI use may involve confidential client information, professional judgement, or client-facing outputs.
Which AI tools are included?
The check can cover public generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, enterprise assistants such as Copilot, and AI-enabled SaaS features used in everyday client or internal work.
Do we need a mature AI policy before starting?
No. The check is useful when policy, ownership, and tool visibility are still developing. It helps identify the minimum controls and evidence that should come next.
Does this replace qualified advisers?
No. Summit Guard provides practical AI governance and cyber risk guidance. Interpretation of legal duties, professional obligations, and assurance needs should stay with appropriately qualified advisers.
Need a clearer view of AI use across the firm?
Start with a short scoping conversation. We will confirm whether an AI governance check is the right next step.