Prompt injection exposes a wider AI governance gap: what GCs should do now
Prompt injection exposes a wider AI governance gap: what GCs should do now
September 04, 2026
United States
United States
United States
Lexology Pro
In this article examining how concealed instructions in litigation documents could manipulate AI tools, partner Amy Rudolph discusses practical safeguards for externally sourced documents.
As Ms. Rudolph notes, this risk is not limited to litigation documents but can extend to any process in which businesses rely on AI to analyze documents received from third parties. She outlines steps legal teams can take to reduce risk, including screening for warning signs, cleaning documents before upload, instructing AI tools regarding embedded instructions, and independently verifying important outputs.
The materials on the Eversheds Sutherland website are for general information purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. While reasonable care is taken to ensure accuracy, the materials may not reflect the most current legal developments. Eversheds Sutherland disclaims liability for actions taken based on the materials. Always consult a qualified lawyer for specific legal matters. To view the full disclaimer, see our Terms and Conditions or Disclaimer section in the footer. Eversheds Sutherland is a provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information about these entities and Eversheds Sutherlands' structure please see the Legal Notice page of this website.