Artificial Intelligence Lawyer — Governance, Contracts, Compliance, Litigation

AI is now embedded in core business functions — drafting, data analysis, customer service, hiring, pricing, and compliance decisions. The legal questions that follow are not optional. Data governance, intellectual property, vendor liability, regulatory exposure, and accountability for AI-generated errors are real legal risks. The firm helps businesses deploy AI responsibly and protect the value they create.

Attorney Ronald S. Cook is the author of Mastering Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice, a contributor to legal commentary on AI in practice, and the firm publishes a separate transparency disclosure describing how the firm uses AI in its own work.

Call toll-free: (888) 275-2620. Available 24/7.

Author

Mastering Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice, available on Amazon

Press Commentary

Background contributor to New York Magazine on AI detection and false-positive accusations

25+ Years

NY legal practice across business, IP, regulatory, and technology matters

Who This Page Is For

The firm represents businesses adopting or deploying AI: companies building AI policies; companies negotiating AI vendor agreements; employers using AI in hiring or workforce management; healthcare and financial services entities deploying AI in regulated settings; companies generating IP through AI-assisted workflows; investors and acquirers conducting AI-related diligence; and businesses facing regulatory inquiry, customer complaint, or litigation related to AI use.

The firm also handles related matters at the consumer and individual level — including defense of students and professionals accused of AI use, AI-generated content and music streaming fraud, and copyright disputes involving AI-generated works — though the primary focus of this page is corporate AI deployment.

Adopting AI in your business? Call (888) 275-2620 for an initial conversation.

Core AI Legal Services

AI Governance and Policy Development

Most businesses are adopting AI tools faster than their internal controls were designed to handle. The firm helps companies build the legal infrastructure that makes AI deployment defensible: written policies defining which tools employees may use, what data may be entered into those tools, who reviews consequential outputs, how AI use is documented, and how the policy is enforced. Without this foundation, the business is relying on individual employees to make correct judgment calls in real time. Read Attorney Cook’s article on AI adoption and legal strategy.

AI Vendor Contract Review and Negotiation

AI vendor contracts often shift substantial responsibility back to the customer. The business may be required to ensure it has rights to all input data, accept that outputs may not be unique, assume responsibility for reviewing outputs, and operate under liability limitations that make recovery difficult even in a serious incident. The firm reviews and negotiates AI vendor agreements: indemnity provisions, data use and training rights, audit rights, security commitments, service level agreements, IP ownership and license terms, and termination rights. AI procurement should not be treated as a routine software purchase.

Data Privacy and AI

AI tools create new data privacy exposure. Employees routinely enter confidential, proprietary, or regulated information into AI systems without understanding what happens to that data. The firm advises on compliance with NY’s SHIELD Act (General Business Law § 899-bb), state privacy laws (CCPA/CPRA, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia, and others), sector-specific regulations (HIPAA, GLBA, FERPA), and international frameworks (GDPR, EU AI Act) where applicable. The firm also helps businesses develop data classification rules that identify which information may be used with which tools, under what settings, and by whom.

Intellectual Property and AI Output

AI-generated output creates real intellectual property uncertainty. Copyright protection in the U.S. requires sufficient human authorship, which the Copyright Office and federal courts have interpreted to limit registrability of purely AI-generated material (Thaler v. Perlmutter, D.D.C. 2023, affirmed; Copyright Office guidance on AI-assisted works). Vendor contracts that “assign” output ownership do not necessarily confer enforceable copyright. The firm advises businesses on protecting AI-generated marketing assets, product descriptions, and creative content, and on evaluating how defensible AI-enabled assets will be in licensing, fundraising, acquisitions, and diligence contexts. Learn more about copyright litigation.

Trade Secret Protection in AI Workflows

AI deployment creates trade secret exposure when employees input proprietary information — customer lists, pricing data, product development materials, source code — into systems where the downstream use of that data is unclear. Once trade secret material has been disclosed to a third-party AI vendor without adequate protection, the legal status of that material can be permanently affected. The firm advises on trade secret protection policies, employee training requirements, and NDAs that account for AI use, and on remediation when potential exposure has already occurred. Learn more about trademark and trade secret litigation.

AI Liability and Error Accountability

When AI produces inaccurate customer information, flawed analysis, discriminatory recommendations, or misleading summaries, the legal consequences usually do not depend on whether the error came from a person or a model — the company remains responsible. The firm advises on liability-control measures including human oversight protocols, output validation procedures, disclosure requirements for AI-generated content, and incident response when AI errors cause harm. Particularly important for AI used in hiring, pricing, healthcare, financial services, lending, and any consumer-facing application.

NYC Local Law 144 and Employment AI Compliance

NYC Local Law 144 (the Automated Employment Decision Tool Law) requires NYC employers using “automated employment decision tools” (AEDTs) to: (1) conduct an annual independent bias audit; (2) publish a summary of the audit results on the employer’s website before using the AEDT; (3) notify candidates and employees that an AEDT is being used and disclose the job qualifications and characteristics it will assess; and (4) provide an opportunity to request an alternative selection process or accommodation. Effective July 5, 2023; enforced by the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection.

The firm advises NYC employers on LL 144 compliance: scoping (what counts as an AEDT, what the in-scope use cases are), bias audit vendor selection and engagement, audit results review, public posting compliance, candidate notice procedures, and defensive documentation. The firm also advises on the broader employment AI exposure under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, NY State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296), and NYC Human Rights Law — each of which applies to AI-driven hiring decisions independent of LL 144’s audit requirement. Learn more about employment litigation.

Regulatory Compliance Across Jurisdictions

The legal environment for AI is taking shape through a patchwork of federal agency guidance, state laws, sector-specific regulations, and consumer protection enforcement. NY has enacted bias audit requirements for employment AI. Colorado’s AI Act (effective Feb 2026) imposes governance and disclosure obligations on developers and deployers of “high-risk” AI systems. The EU AI Act has extraterritorial reach for U.S. companies serving EU users. Federal agency activity (FTC, EEOC, HHS, CFPB, SEC) continues to shape enforcement priorities. The firm helps businesses build compliance programs that adapt as the rules change, rather than waiting for regulatory clarity that may not arrive on a predictable timeline.

The AI Regulatory Landscape

An overview of the framework the firm tracks for AI compliance work:

Layer	Authorities and Frameworks
NYC	NYC Local Law 144 (Automated Employment Decision Tools) — bias audit requirements, candidate notice, and accommodation procedures for NYC employers using AEDTs.
New York State	SHIELD Act (GBL § 899-bb) for data security; NY Executive Law § 296 (Human Rights Law) for employment discrimination; NY Attorney General AI symposium reports and ongoing AG enforcement priorities; NY State Bar Association AI guidance.
Other states	Colorado AI Act (effective Feb 2026); Illinois AI Video Interview Act; California’s recent AI legislation (SB 942 transparency, AB 2013 training data disclosure, AB 1008 privacy); state consumer privacy laws (CCPA/CPRA, Virginia, Connecticut, Texas, Utah, etc.) that apply to AI-driven processing; state-by-state hiring AI bias laws.
Federal — statutory	Title VII (employment discrimination, including disparate-impact theory applied to AI); ADA; ADEA; HIPAA (where AI processes PHI); GLBA; Fair Credit Reporting Act (where AI generates consumer reports); FTC Act § 5 (unfair or deceptive practices, including AI representations); Section 230 (evolving as applied to AI-generated content).
Federal — agency guidance	EEOC technical assistance on AI in employment; FTC guidance on AI claims and substantiation, plus the FTC’s “Operation AI Comply” enforcement sweep; HHS guidance on AI in healthcare; CFPB statements on AI in lending; SEC guidance on AI claims by registrants; NIST AI Risk Management Framework (voluntary but adopted by many enterprises).
Federal — executive activity	Executive orders on AI continue to be issued, rescinded, and replaced across administrations. The current federal posture emphasizes innovation and federal preemption of state AI rules; specific orders in effect change frequently. The firm tracks the current state.
International	EU AI Act (extraterritorial reach for U.S. companies serving EU users; risk-based framework with prohibitions, high-risk system requirements, transparency obligations; phased compliance through 2027); GDPR (where AI processes EU personal data); UK and Canadian AI frameworks where applicable.
Sector-specific	Healthcare AI (HIPAA, HHS guidance, state medical board positions on AI in clinical decision-making); financial services AI (banking regulators, model risk management); insurance AI (NAIC framework and state insurance department adoption); education AI (FERPA, state education department guidance).

This is a fast-moving area. The firm tracks regulatory developments and updates client compliance programs as the framework changes. New York State law and federal law are within the firm’s primary scope; for state-specific laws in other states (e.g., Colorado AI Act enforcement actions), the firm coordinates with local counsel where in-state appearance is required.

Currently Active Issues

Developments shaping AI legal practice in 2026. Updated periodically.

Colorado AI Act in effect

Colorado’s AI Act took effect February 1, 2026, imposing governance, risk management, disclosure, and consumer rights obligations on developers and deployers of “high-risk” AI systems. Multi-state operators with Colorado users need to assess applicability and build compliance programs.

EU AI Act phased compliance

EU AI Act prohibitions took effect February 2025; general-purpose AI obligations August 2025; high-risk system requirements continue phasing in through August 2026 and 2027. Extraterritorial reach for U.S. companies serving EU users.

Federal preemption activity

The federal posture on state AI regulation continues to evolve, including proposals for federal preemption of state AI rules. The patchwork remains in effect for now; multi-state operators should not delay compliance work in expectation of federal preemption that may or may not occur.

FTC enforcement on AI claims

The FTC’s “Operation AI Comply” enforcement sweep targets deceptive AI claims, AI-related consumer protection violations, and substantiation failures. Companies marketing AI capabilities should be ready to substantiate claims with the same rigor as other product claims.

AI hallucination sanctions

NY courts and federal courts in NY have sanctioned attorneys whose filings contained fabricated AI-generated case citations. The pattern is now well established. Businesses using AI for any output that may be relied upon by a court, regulator, or customer should have verification protocols in place.

Copyright infringement litigation

Generative AI training data has produced major copyright litigation against AI developers. Settlements and licensing deals continue. Businesses using AI-generated content should be aware that the underlying models may be the subject of unresolved infringement claims affecting downstream use.

How the Firm Engages on AI Matters

The firm’s typical AI engagements fall into five categories:

Defined-scope governance projects. Building or revising an AI use policy, vendor selection framework, employee training program, or incident response plan. Scoped engagement, defined deliverables, fixed or capped fee where appropriate.

Vendor contract review. Reviewing or negotiating a specific AI vendor agreement on a transactional basis. Hourly or fixed-fee depending on complexity.

Compliance assessment. Reviewing the company’s existing AI deployment against the applicable regulatory framework (NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, sector-specific rules) and identifying gaps. Defined-scope engagement.

Ongoing AI counsel. Recurring or as-needed counsel for businesses with active AI deployment, where new vendor contracts, policy questions, regulatory inquiries, and incident response arise on an ongoing basis. Retainer or monthly arrangement.

Litigation and incident response. Defending or pursuing claims involving AI-generated harm, employment AI bias claims, IP disputes involving AI output, vendor disputes, and regulatory inquiries. NY litigation handled directly; multi-state litigation in coordination with local counsel where required.

About the Firm

Ronald S. Cook, PC is a New York law firm that practices across business law, intellectual property, regulatory compliance, technology matters, and litigation. Attorney Cook holds a J.D., dual LL.M. degrees in Bankruptcy and Taxation, and an MBA. He is the author of Mastering Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice on Amazon and is regularly consulted by investigative reporters and journalists for commentary on AI legal issues, including background contribution to New York Magazine.

The firm publishes a separate transparency disclosure describing how it uses AI in its own legal work — a level of operational transparency about AI practices that few firms offer. The firm has over 3,000 client testimonials across Google, BBB, Trustpilot, and other platforms. View verified client reviews.

Frequently Asked Questions

We’re a small business adopting AI. Do we really need a lawyer for this?

Depends on what you’re doing with AI. If you are using ChatGPT to draft marketing copy that you review before publishing, probably not. If you are using AI to make hiring decisions, evaluate loan applications, generate customer-facing content, process protected data (health, financial, education), or build IP that depends on copyright protection, you have legal exposure that benefits from legal review. The cost of getting an AI policy in place is usually a fraction of the cost of dealing with an incident after the fact.

We use AI in 15 states. Can the firm advise on multi-state compliance?

Yes for the federal framework (Title VII, ADA, FTC Act, HIPAA, FCRA, GLBA, FERPA, the EU AI Act for EU-facing operations, and similar frameworks that apply uniformly across the U.S. or based on operations rather than state of admission). Yes for NY State and NYC compliance. For state-specific laws in other states (e.g., Colorado AI Act enforcement, Illinois AI Video Interview Act), the firm identifies the applicable issues, advises on the federal/multi-state framework, and coordinates with local counsel in the relevant state where local representation is required. The firm is direct about the scope of its admission and where local counsel adds value.

Our AI vendor sent us their standard contract. Can you review it?

Yes — this is one of the most common engagements. AI vendor contracts typically warrant negotiation on data use rights, training data usage, output IP, indemnity (especially IP indemnity), liability caps, termination for cause, audit rights, and security commitments. The firm reviews the contract, identifies the issues, marks up the document, and supports the negotiation with the vendor.

We’re a NYC employer using AI in hiring. What do we need to do for LL 144?

In short: scope the in-scope AEDTs; engage an independent bias audit vendor; conduct the audit annually; publish the summary on the company’s website before using the AEDT; provide candidate notice (10 business days before use) including the qualifications and characteristics assessed; provide the alternative selection process / accommodation pathway. Documentation matters. The firm advises on the entire compliance cycle, helps with vendor selection and audit scoping, and reviews the public posting and notice language.

Will the federal government preempt all this state AI law?

Possibly at some point, possibly not. Federal preemption proposals continue but no comprehensive federal AI law has passed. Multi-state operators should not delay compliance in expectation of federal preemption that may or may not occur on a useful timeline. The firm tracks federal activity and adjusts client compliance programs as the framework develops.

Our employees pasted our customer data into ChatGPT before we had a policy. What now?

Common situation. Steps depend on the data involved and the tool used: assessment of what data was disclosed, what the vendor’s data retention and use terms are/were, whether the disclosure triggers any legal notification obligations (state breach notification laws, contractual customer notice obligations, regulatory notification under HIPAA or other sector-specific rules), whether trade secret status was potentially affected, and what remediation is available. The firm helps with the assessment, the notification analysis, and forward-looking policy work to prevent recurrence.

Can we get an indemnity from our AI vendor for IP infringement?

Sometimes. Major commercial AI vendors offer some form of IP indemnity, often subject to material conditions and limitations (use within the vendor’s safety guidelines, exclusion of customer-modified outputs, caps tied to fees paid, etc.). Smaller vendors may not offer it, or may offer it with limitations that make recovery practically difficult. The firm reviews the actual indemnity language, identifies the gaps, and negotiates improvements where leverage exists.

How does the firm bill on AI matters?

Hourly for variable-scope matters (litigation, incident response, ongoing counsel). Fixed or capped fees for defined-scope projects (a single vendor contract review, an AI policy build, an LL 144 compliance assessment) where the scope is clear enough to estimate. Retainer arrangements for businesses with ongoing AI counsel needs. Fee structure is agreed in writing in the engagement letter before any work begins.

Contact Us

Call toll-free: (888) 275-2620. Available 24/7.

Suffolk County Office: 12 Bank Avenue, Smithtown, NY 11787

Nassau County Office: 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 325, Garden City, NY 11530

Our law firm has over 3,000 client testimonials across Google, BBB, Trustpilot, and other platforms. View verified client reviews.

Last reviewed by Attorney Ronald S. Cook — May 2026

This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal and regulatory framework governing AI continues to evolve through federal agency guidance, state legislation, court rulings, and international rulemaking; verify current law and regulations before relying on the information here. Prior results do not guarantee future results.