Skill Diligence

AI for In House Counsel

Practical AI for In House Counsel

Issue 28 · 6 July 2026

Brussels Made the AI Act Delay Official — But One Deadline Just Moved Closer

Plus: a "CLM killer" launches for in-house contract teams, a US federal judge cancels a trial and benches four lawyers over AI-generated filings, and a new workflow for working out who else in the business needs to see a contract.

Here's what mattered most to me this week — the Council of the EU gave its final sign-off to the AI Act simplification package on 29 June, confirming the high-risk delay to December 2027. But buried in the same deal, the grace period for labelling AI-generated content was cut in half, bringing that deadline forward to 2 December 2026. If your organisation publishes AI-generated content, that's the date to put in your compliance calendar now. Also in this issue: a brand-new workflow, suggested on a call this week with a university in-house lawyer, for triaging which departments need to see an incoming contract.

1

This Week's Reading

Top Story
Council of the EU / White & Case · 29 June 2026
The AI Act Delay Is Now Final — and the Transparency Deadline Just Got Nearer
The delay you heard about is confirmed — but one obligation is arriving sooner than originally planned. On 29 June, the Council of the EU gave its final green light to the AI Act simplification package, following the European Parliament's 16 June vote. Publication in the Official Journal is expected this month, ahead of the 2 August 2026 deadline. High-risk obligations are deferred to December 2027 (August 2028 for embedded systems) — but the grace period for transparency solutions on AI-generated content was cut from six months to three, setting that deadline at 2 December 2026.
Key Insight:

Don't file this under "delayed" — part of it just accelerated. If your organisation publishes AI-generated or AI-manipulated content — marketing copy, chatbot output, images, reports — the obligation to mark it as such now bites on 2 December 2026. Audit where AI-generated content leaves your organisation unlabelled, and put the December date in your compliance calendar this week, alongside the December 2027 high-risk planning you (hopefully) started after last week's issue.

Artificial Lawyer / Law.com · 30 June 2026
A "CLM Killer" Just Launched — Aimed Squarely at In-House Contract Teams
The vendor pitch is now full contract lifecycle autonomy: intake, triage, redline and routing before a lawyer ever opens the document. On 30 June, Spellbook launched Autonomous Contract Management (ACM) in early access, billed as a "CLM killer". The system pulls new contracts in from email, Slack and Salesforce, reviews and redlines each against your standards, routes it to the right pipeline and owner, and keeps monitoring renewals and risk after signature. General availability is expected within months.
Key Insight:

Tools can only enforce routing rules you've actually written down. Automated intake and routing is exactly what this week's workflow (below) helps you define: which departments must see which contracts, and when. Map your own triage logic first — then any tool, from a full ACM platform to a simple prompt, can apply it. If you buy the platform before defining the logic, you'll automate your current ambiguity.

US District Court (N.D. Miss.) / Gizmodo · June 2026
A US Judge Cancelled an Entire Trial and Benched Four Lawyers Over AI Filings
Lawyers on both sides admitted using AI to generate filings they hadn't read — the judge suspended the two lead attorneys from her court for two years. In a Mississippi fee dispute, Senior US District Judge Sharion Aycock paused proceedings, cancelled the trial and dismissed all four lawyers involved after filings were found riddled with AI-fabricated citations. Fines ranged from $1,000 to $3,500 depending on whether counsel failed to verify a filing or actually drafted with hallucinated authorities.
Key Insight:

For in-house counsel, the exposure here is your panel firms, not your own prompts. Sanctions against external counsel delay your matters, embarrass your organisation and can derail a case entirely. Ask your panel firms to confirm, in writing, their verification process for AI-assisted drafting — and consider adding an AI-use and citation-verification clause to your outside counsel guidelines at the next panel review.

2

This Week's Workshop

Who Else Needs to See This? Routing Contracts to the Right Departments

Instructions that come in to an in-house legal team often need more than one person. A contract lands on your desk, and somewhere in the business there's a Data team, a Finance team, an Insurance manager or a Health & Safety lead who needed to see it before signature — and finds out after. In this week's workshop, we walk through a reusable AI workflow that first builds a profile of your business — which departments exist and what should trigger their involvement — and then triages any real contract against that profile, producing a routing note you can forward internally. Build the profile once; reuse it for every contract after that.

Agent Builder Course — Five Days, One Hour a Day

Learn to build, deploy and continuously improve AI agents for your legal team's hardest recurring work — contract triage, due diligence, document assembly, compliance monitoring. No coding required. Works with any LLM, including Microsoft Copilot. Spaces are limited.

More details and booking here →

Book a Call

This Week's Workflow: Which Departments Need to See This Contract?

The instructions that come in to an in-house legal team often require more than one person. This workflow is a tool to help work out who else needs to look at a particular matter, so those people can be lined up from the start — helping in-house lawyers do their job without the late surprise of a department that should have been consulted weeks ago. It was suggested over the course of a call this week with a university in-house lawyer, and it works for any organisation. Paste the whole thing into Claude, ChatGPT or any LLM and it will walk you through building a routing profile of your business (Steps 1–3), then triage a real contract against it (Steps 4–6). Once the profile is built, save it and jump straight to Step 4 for every new contract. Prefer it as a document? Open the workflow in Google Docs →

# INSTRUCTIONS FOR AI WORKFLOW // This is a single continuous workflow. It first builds a profile of the business, then uses that profile to triage an incoming contract. // At each step, ask me for the context you need to complete that step. If I don't give a full answer, fill in what you think is sensible and reasonable for an in-house legal team, and tell me what you've assumed so I can correct it. // If I ask for help, examples, or synthetic data during a step, provide it without restarting the step. // Give a short introduction at the start of each step explaining where we are in the process. // Ask for confirmation after each step before moving to the next. // Use all caps and # for step headings, and // for sub-steps. // The workflow is designed to be reused: once the business profile (Steps 1-3) is built, I should be able to skip straight to Step 4 for every new contract, using the same profile. # TASK You are an in-house legal operations expert. Your role is to help an in-house lawyer work out, for any given business, which internal departments need to see or be consulted on a contract - and then to actually triage a real contract against that business's structure, producing a routing note the lawyer can forward internally. # INTRODUCTION // Introduce yourself as the in-house lawyer's legal ops assistant for contract routing. // Explain that we'll first build a short profile of the business (who needs to see what, and why), and then use that profile to triage a real contract. // Tell me that once the profile is built, I can reuse Steps 1-3 as a saved reference and jump straight to Step 4 next time. // Ask if I'd like a one-line explanation of why this matters (missed departmental sign-off = risk), or if I'd rather jump straight in. # STEP 1: MAP THE BUSINESS STRUCTURE // Introduction: In this step, we identify which departments or functions in the business could plausibly need to review a contract before it's signed. // Context: Ask me for the following, one at a time or together if I prefer: // - What sector(s) the business operates in // - The internal departments/functions that exist (e.g. Data/IT, Finance, Planning, Property, Construction, Procurement, HR, Health & Safety, Insurance, Communications/PR, Sustainability/ESG) // - Roughly how big the business is and how centralised or devolved decision-making is // - Whether any departments are known to be particularly risk-sensitive or have been burned before by a contract they weren't shown // Action + Confirmation: Produce a numbered list of departments relevant to this business, with a one-line description of each department's general remit. Then ask, "Does this list of departments reflect your business? Should any be added, removed, or merged?" # STEP 2: DEFINE TRIGGERS FOR EACH DEPARTMENT // Introduction: Now we work out what specifically in a contract should trigger each department's involvement - not every department needs to see every contract. // Context: For each department confirmed in Step 1, ask me what kind of clause, subject matter, or contract feature means that department should be looped in. Prompt me with examples if I'm unsure, e.g.: // - Data/IT: personal data processing, data sharing, new IT systems or integrations, cyber/security obligations // - Finance: payment terms, currency risk, unusual liability caps, guarantees, VAT/tax structuring // - Planning: land use, change of use, planning conditions, section 106 obligations // - Property: leases, licences to occupy, site access, dilapidations // - Construction: build obligations, JCT/NEC terms, defects liability, retention // - Procurement: supplier onboarding, exclusivity, minimum spend commitments // - HR: TUPE, secondment, contractor/employment status // - Insurance: indemnities, insurance requirements, uninsured risk // Action + Confirmation: Produce a trigger table: Department | Trigger conditions (what to look for in a contract). Then ask, "Do these triggers accurately capture when each department should be pulled in? Anything to add or tighten?" # STEP 3: SET RISK THRESHOLDS AND ESCALATION RULES // Introduction: Some triggers should mean "flag for review," others should mean "must sign off before we proceed." This step sets that distinction, plus any value or severity thresholds. // Context: Ask me: // - Are there monetary thresholds above which certain departments (e.g. Finance) must be involved regardless of subject matter? // - Are there absolute red lines - clause types that always require escalation (e.g. unlimited liability, IP assignment, exclusivity)? // - Should flagging be tiered (e.g. "FYI," "Review requested," "Sign-off required")? // Action + Confirmation: Produce a short set of escalation rules, tied to the trigger table from Step 2. Then ask, "Are you comfortable with these thresholds and escalation tiers? This completes the business profile - shall we lock it in and move to triaging a contract?" # STEP 4: INTAKE THE CONTRACT // Introduction: We now switch from building the profile to using it. This step reads and summarises the actual contract in front of us. // Context: Ask me to paste in the contract text, or a summary of its key terms if the full text isn't practical. Ask for the counterparty name, contract type, and value if known. // Action + Confirmation: Produce a short neutral summary of the contract: parties, subject matter, term, value, and any notably unusual clauses. Then ask, "Is this an accurate summary of the contract? Anything I've missed that's material?" # STEP 5: MATCH THE CONTRACT AGAINST THE BUSINESS PROFILE // Introduction: This is the core triage step - matching what's actually in the contract against the triggers and thresholds set in Steps 2 and 3. // Context: No new context should be needed here - use the profile from Steps 1-3 and the summary from Step 4. If something is ambiguous (e.g. it's unclear whether a clause counts as a trigger), ask me to clarify that specific point only. // Action + Confirmation: Produce a Department | Trigger matched | Tier (FYI / Review / Sign-off) table, plus a one-line rationale per department flagged. Then ask, "Does this routing look right to you? Any department to add, remove, or re-tier before we finalise?" # STEP 6: FINAL DELIVERABLE - ROUTING NOTE // Introduction: Finally, we turn the triage into something you can actually forward - a short, professional routing note or email. // Action + Confirmation: Draft a routing note in plain English, suitable for forwarding to the flagged departments or to a distribution list. It should include: contract name/counterparty, a one-line summary, which departments are flagged and why, the tier for each, and a clear ask (e.g. "please confirm by [date]"). Keep it brief - this is a triage flag, not a legal briefing. Then ask, "This concludes the contract triage. Do you want to adjust the tone, add a deadline, or make any other changes before you send it?" // Congratulations!
Or open in Google Docs →

Want More Prompts & Workflows?

For prompts and more detailed workflows like this one, take a look at our book on AI for legal professionals. Explore step-by-step guides, ready-to-use prompts, and best practices for integrating AI safely into your legal work.

Explore the Book →

Until next Monday,

— Richard Nicholas

This week's workflow came directly from a conversation with a reader — a university in-house lawyer who described the problem on a call. Got a recurring headache you'd like turned into a workflow? Just hit reply — I read every one. (Received this one secondhand? Reach me directly at [email protected].)

Get This Newsletter Every Week

Curated AI and legal governance news, a copy-paste prompt, and a practical workshop — delivered free to in-house counsel every Monday.

Get Next Monday's Issue →