The annual lawyers professional liability renewal cycle is the single moment in a small firm’s calendar when an outside party reads the firm’s risk posture and prices it. AI has barely reached the printed form: of the publicly posted LPL applications reviewed for this site, only AmTrust’s asks about it, through a checkbox on its May 2023 form that asks a firm allowing AI software to draft documents to attach a description. Starting in 2025, national LPL carriers and several state-mutual carriers began publishing AI guidance, and broker commentary reports LPL underwriters focusing on firms’ AI controls. ALPS and CNA have published practitioner-facing guidance on AI use; Lawyers Mutual NC has done the same. Travelers, by contrast, has no public LPL-specific AI publication located on its site. At renewal, a firm that cannot answer an underwriter’s AI question is sending the loudest signal it can.
This post is what carriers are asking, why they are asking now, and what a five-attorney firm should have on hand the week the renewal application arrives.
What carriers are asking
Brokers describe one broad question so far. Jencap’s Sean Burke told IA Magazine that agents “can tell their law firm clients what to expect from underwriters by asking ‘How are you utilizing AI?’ on renewals,” and that “for now, it remains largely a check-the-box inquiry.” When an underwriter follows up, the answer is likely to draw on four areas. The four below are this site’s preparation checklist, not a question set any carrier or broker has published.
Whether the firm uses generative AI in client work. The yes/no answer is almost always yes. It is the gate to any follow-up.
Whether the firm has a written AI use policy. A document is a stronger answer than a verbal one. A workable policy names approved tools and prohibited tools. It defines what client information may and may not be entered into AI tools. It sets the verification step required before AI-assisted work is filed or sent to a client.
Whether attorneys have acknowledged the policy. A signed acknowledgment from each attorney and paralegal who uses AI is the artifact that proves the policy is in force, not just on paper.
Whether the firm logs AI-assisted work. A use log that records which matters used AI, what tool was used, and who verified the output is the strongest single artifact a firm can produce.
Underwriters may also ask about vendor diligence: specifically, whether the firm has reviewed the terms of service of any AI tool that handles client information, and whether enterprise privacy controls are enabled. This question maps directly to the duty in ABA Formal Opinion 512 on confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6).
Why carriers are asking now
Three things happened between 2023 and 2025 that put AI on the underwriting agenda.
The public sanctions docket. The 2023 sanctions order in Mata v. Avianca put AI-fabricated citations on the public record, and sanctions orders in federal and state courts kept arriving through 2024 and 2025. The sanctions patterns post tracks the docket. Each order is a public record of the error an LPL claim would be built on.
The first wave of bar guidance. The State Bar of California’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct issued its Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law in November 2023; a 2026 revision has since replaced it. Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 followed on January 19, 2024, and Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-457 on March 15, 2024. ABA Formal Opinion 512 issued on July 29, 2024. The New York City Bar Association’s Formal Opinion 2024-5 followed on August 7, 2024, and the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas’s Opinion 705 in February 2025. The ABA 512 vs state bars post summarizes the divergences. In the jurisdictions that have issued guidance, AI misuse now maps onto duties the bar has already spelled out, which makes it harder to treat as an emerging-risk hypothesis.
Exclusions in neighboring lines. W.R. Berkley’s Form PC 51380 00 (06-24), an “absolute” AI exclusion, amends its D&O, employment practices and fiduciary coverage. Verisk’s general-liability AI exclusions (CG 40 47, CG 40 48, CG 35 08) are advisory forms with a January 2026 edition date that insurers adopt state by state. Neither attaches to a lawyers professional liability form, but both show underwriters in adjacent lines deciding they would rather not carry AI risk silently. WTW’s errors and omissions outlook for 2026 reports LPL underwriters concerned with “tight controls over AI selection and use to ensure accuracy,” and focused on training and supervision.
What is not happening yet
Two things are conspicuously not in market.
No filed AI exclusion on a lawyers professional liability form has been located in the admitted market. The one located LPL example is a report, not a form: in September 2024, program manager Vanguard Specialty reported that a competitor to its non-standard lawyers program “is now attaching a manuscript endorsement” excluding claims based on any actual or alleged use of generative AI by the law firm. The carrier, the states, and whether the program is admitted or surplus lines were not disclosed, and no filed form for it has been located.
No premium credit for documented AI governance was located among the carriers reviewed. The closest thing to a pricing signal is a broker forecast: Jencap’s Sean Burke expects firms without documented protocols to fall out of preferred-risk tiers over the next 12 to 18 months. If that happens, the cost shows up as a tier change, not a line item.
One thing has started. On September 1, 2026, Counterpart launched a lawyers professional liability product that includes affirmative AI coverage, protection “for claims arising from the use of AI in the delivery of legal services.” It is the first LPL product located for this site marketed with affirmative AI coverage; the policy form itself has not been reviewed. The carrier tracker follows the rest.
What to have ready
A firm preparing for the 2026 renewal cycle should have these artifacts ready before the application form arrives.
Written AI use policy. Aim for two to four pages. Name approved and prohibited tools. Define what client information may and may not be entered. Set the verification standard for AI-assisted work. Identify the supervising attorney for AI-related questions.
Attorney acknowledgment file. Capture a signed acknowledgment from every attorney and paralegal who uses AI in any matter. Date, name, signature.
Use log. Build a simple table that records which matters used AI, which tool was used, what the AI was used for (research, drafting, summarization), and who verified the output. This log is the artifact demonstrating the policy is operational.
Vendor diligence file. Write a short memo per AI tool. Each memo documents review of the tool’s terms of service. It captures the privacy posture: whether inputs train the model, whether outputs are exposed to other users, whether enterprise privacy controls are enabled. It records the firm’s authorization decision.
Incident-response procedure. Draft a one-page procedure for what the firm does if an AI-assisted filing is challenged, sanctioned, or alleged to contain fabricated authority. Name the supervising attorney, the disclosure path, and the documentation file.
The Carrier-Renewal Packet, now in development, is built to bundle these five artifacts plus four additional documents, pre-customized to the firm’s state bar opinion regime. For firms that prefer a guided rollout including vendor interviews, attorney training, and carrier-submission prep, consulting runs the rollout end to end.
When to start
Renewal dates vary by carrier and by firm, so the useful starting point is the policy’s own effective date. Our working estimate is that the documentation above takes a small firm two to four weeks to produce properly: policy drafting, attorney sign-off, vendor diligence, and log setup. A firm with several months of runway can go deeper on training and vendor diligence.
A firm with a renewal in two weeks and no documentation may wish to start with the policy and the attorney acknowledgments. The use log and vendor diligence can be marked as in progress, and the application’s AI questions still call for an answer.
A note on legal advice
This post describes carrier behavior observed across published applications and underwriting commentary. It is not legal advice on specific carrier coverage or specific firm risk. Talk to your broker about what your specific carrier asks. Talk to your firm’s outside counsel about coverage interpretation. For a working overview of attorney AI duties under ABA Formal Opinion 512, see the compliance guide.