In-house counsel and company management are urged to build context-specific AI policies grounded in existing contractual commitments rather than adopting generic templates

A detailed practice guide published by Kohrman Jackson and Krantz LLP sets out the operational framework for building context-aware AI policies for businesses, arguing that the dominant failure mode in corporate AI governance is the adoption of generic templates that create a written record of controls the company is not actually following, and that such records are discoverable in litigation. The guide's central argument is that an effective AI policy must be constructed from two company-specific variables: the commitments already made in existing instruments such as customer contracts, NDAs (non-disclosure agreements), privacy notices, and regulatory filings, and the categories of information the company actually handles. A business processing regulated financial data, material non-public information (MNPI), or protected health information requires controls that a marketing agency handling public copy does not, and a policy built around the most sensitive data category the company touches is the correct starting point. The guide identifies five domains where AI governance must be integrated into existing instruments rather than appended as a standalone policy: employment and HR documentation, customer and supplier contracts, privacy representations, technical controls, and incident response plans. On the regulatory landscape, the guide notes that the EU AI Act reaches companies outside the EU when their systems or outputs are used within it, with obligations phasing in through 2027, while US state-level AI legislation has been highly volatile in 2026. Colorado's state AI statute had its commencement postponed from February to June 2026, was then stayed by a federal court, and was then repealed and replaced, all within a single year. The guide flags that a December 2025 executive order directs the US Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws in court and that the Department intervened against Colorado's statute within months.