AI & emerging technology
AI governance programs, AI vendor contracts, and straight answers on technology the law hasn’t caught up to yet.
Talk with MikeHow MB Legal helps
AI adoption inside a company moves faster than governance does. Employees start using AI tools whether or not a policy exists, and vendors ship AI features whether or not a contract accounts for them. MB Legal advises technology companies on AI governance: the policies, vendor contracts, and ongoing monitoring that let a company use AI without losing control of how it’s used. Michael Bittner serves as Co-Vice Chair of the Florida Bar Business Law Section’s AI Task Force, work that puts him inside the state’s ongoing effort to define how Florida law treats AI use by businesses and by lawyers.
Most companies have no written AI use policy, which means employees are deciding on their own what data goes into a public AI tool. MB Legal drafts AI use policies that name the approved tools, define what data can and cannot go into them, and address the shadow AI problem directly — the AI tools employees are already using that the company never sanctioned. That governance-framework approach is the same thinking behind Michael’s Florida Bar Business Law Section piece on shadow AI in the workplace.
As AI vendors move from single-response tools to agents that take actions on a company’s behalf, the contracts covering those vendors need to keep up. MB Legal negotiates agentic AI vendor agreements built around scope-of-authority clauses (what the AI can actually do), audit logging (a record of what it did), and liability allocation when an autonomous action causes harm or error — reading the vendor’s actual contract terms rather than assuming a standard SaaS agreement already covers an AI agent’s conduct.
For SaaS companies building AI features into their own products, MB Legal advises on the legal side of that build: what the underlying model-provider agreement actually permits, what disclosures the product owes end users about AI-generated output, and how liability for that output is allocated. That counsel continues as an ongoing AI compliance monitoring service, most often delivered through the Fractional General Counsel program, since AI tools and the law governing them keep changing after the initial policy or contract is signed. (Data privacy questions that arise from AI adoption — what personal data flows to an AI vendor, whether a DPA is required, biometric consent for AI-powered features — are covered on the Data Privacy & Security page.)
AI is the sharpest example of a broader problem: technology that ships before the law catches up to it. The same questions come up around biometric and other emerging tech, where statutes are still being written and the first cases are still being decided. When a company is building or adopting technology that has no settled legal answer yet, the useful counsel is not a citation to a rule that does not exist. It is a read on where the law is heading, what a defensible position looks like now, and how to document the decision so it holds up if the rule lands somewhere unexpected.
Why MB Legal
Michael Bittner was appointed Co-Vice Chair of the Florida Bar Business Law Section’s AI Task Force in June 2026, a role focused on how Florida law should treat AI use by businesses and by lawyers. His writing includes “Before You Prompt: AI, Privilege, and Confidentiality for Florida Lawyers” and the forthcoming “Shadow AI in the Workplace: A Governance Framework,” both published through the Florida Bar Business Law Section, and he writes regularly on LinkedIn about AI governance, AI contracting, and the legal risk that comes with adopting AI inside a business — work that asks the same governance questions companies now have to answer about their own AI use.
MB Legal applies that same standard internally. Agentic workflows and AI-assisted contract review are part of the firm’s delivery model, with a licensed attorney reviewing and verifying every deliverable before it goes out the door. Counsel that runs its own practice on AI governance principles understands the operational reality of building an AI use policy that employees will actually follow, not just one that reads well on paper.
Common questions
Does my company need a written AI use policy?
Yes, if employees have access to AI tools, and most do. Without a written policy, employees decide on their own what data goes into a public AI tool, which creates confidentiality, trade secret, and data security exposure the company never approved. MB Legal drafts AI use policies that address which tools are approved, what data can and cannot go into them, and how the policy gets enforced -- covering the shadow AI problem: employees using AI tools the company never sanctioned in the first place.
What is agentic AI vendor contracting, and why does my company need it?
Agentic AI tools don't just respond to prompts -- they take actions: sending emails, updating records, executing workflows on their own. A standard SaaS or API agreement was not written with that in mind. MB Legal negotiates AI vendor contracts that address scope-of-authority (what the AI is actually permitted to do), audit logging (a record of what it did), and liability allocation for autonomous actions that cause harm or error.
What does ongoing AI compliance monitoring actually involve?
AI tools and the law around them change faster than a one-time policy can track. Ongoing AI compliance monitoring means periodic review of which AI tools the company is actually using (not just which ones were approved), updates to the AI use policy as new tools or state statutes come online, and re-checking vendor contracts as vendors add new agentic features. MB Legal provides this as an ongoing service, typically through the Fractional General Counsel program.
Can employees using AI tools like ChatGPT put attorney-client privilege or trade secrets at risk?
Yes. Pasting confidential business information, contract drafts, or privileged communications into a public AI tool can waive confidentiality protections the company assumed were intact, and the same risk applies to trade secrets. This is a governance problem, not just a technology problem -- it requires a policy that tells employees what categories of information cannot go into an AI tool, and why. Michael Bittner has written on this specific risk for the Florida Bar Business Law Section.
Does MB Legal advise SaaS companies building AI features into their own products?
Yes. Building an AI feature into a SaaS product raises its own legal questions: what the underlying model-provider agreement actually permits, what disclosures the product owes its own end users about AI-generated output, and how liability for that output gets allocated between the company and its AI vendor. MB Legal advises technology companies on the legal side of that build, separate from privacy compliance questions about personal data flowing to the AI vendor, which the Data Privacy & Security practice covers.
What if my company is building something the law hasn't caught up to yet — beyond AI?
AI is the sharpest current example, but it is not the only technology shipping ahead of settled law. Biometric identification, connected devices, and other emerging tech run into the same problem: the statutes are still being written and the first cases are still being decided, so there is no clean rule to cite. The useful counsel there is not a citation to a rule that doesn't exist. It's a read on where the law is heading, what a defensible position looks like right now, and how to document the decision so it holds up if the rule lands somewhere unexpected. MB Legal advises technology companies operating in that gap, which is the same judgment the AI work depends on.
Ready to protect your business?
Talk with Mike