How long should we keep the AI conversations on a matter?

Treat an AI conversation as part of the working papers for the matter and apply the retention period you already apply to the file it belongs to. That is the simplest defensible answer, and it avoids a situation where the file survives but the record of how a key figure or date was arrived at has quietly disappeared. If you want a shorter period for some or all AI material, decide that deliberately, write it down, and make sure the reasons hold up.

Is an AI conversation part of the file?

In practical terms, yes, in the same way a research note, a draft chronology or a fee earner's calculation of a deadline is part of the file. It records work done on the client's matter. It may show where a figure came from, which documents were read, what the fee earner asked and what they were told.

That does not mean every exchange is worth preserving. A fee earner who asks three badly phrased versions of the same question before getting to the point has not created three records of enduring value. The test is the one you already use for drafts and notes: does this show how the work was done, or is it scaffolding you would normally throw away?

Where the conversation fed into something you relied on, such as a limitation date, a schedule of figures, or the list of documents put before counsel, keep it. Where it produced nothing that left the fee earner's screen, you can be more relaxed.

What your existing policies already decide for you

Most firms do not need a new policy here. Three existing ones usually cover it.

• Your file retention policy. It already sets periods by work type, usually driven by limitation exposure, regulatory expectations and client agreements. AI material created for a matter sits inside the matter, so it inherits that period. Keeping it in a different place with a different clock is how things get lost.
• Your data protection position. UK GDPR expects personal data not to be kept longer than necessary, and the Information Commissioner's Office expects organisations to be able to explain their retention periods. If the AI conversation contains personal data, which on a live matter it almost certainly does, it needs to fall within a period you can justify, and it needs to be destroyed when the file is destroyed rather than lingering in a separate system.
• Your professional obligations. The Solicitors Regulation Authority expects firms to keep proper records of the work they do and to be able to account to clients for it. A record showing how an answer was reached is more useful to you in a complaint than an assertion that the fee earner checked everything.

When keeping the conversation helps you

There are four situations where firms are glad the record survived.

1. A complaint. If a client, or the Legal Ombudsman, asks how a piece of advice was arrived at, a contemporaneous record of the sources considered is worth more than a reconstruction two years later.
2. A negligence allegation or insurer's enquiry. Insurers tend to want to see what was done, not just what was concluded. A conversation showing which papers were read, what was flagged as unreadable, and what the fee earner then verified is evidence of a process.
3. File handover. Whoever picks up the matter next can see what has already been asked and answered rather than repeating it.
4. Internal review. Supervisors checking a sample of files can see whether AI output was treated as a starting point or as a finished product.

When you should think twice

Keeping everything by default is not automatically the safe choice.

If fee earners paste material into a general purpose tool, the retention question is not really yours to answer, because the record sits with a supplier on terms you may not control. That is a reason to keep client work inside approved tools, not a reason to shorten retention.

There is also the question of what a conversation would look like if it were ever read by someone else. Privilege over working papers depends on the circumstances, and it is not something to assume. The sensible discipline is the one that applies to any internal note: write as though a third party may one day read it. Speculation, loose comments about the client or the opponent, and half-formed theories belong nowhere on a file, AI conversation or not.

Finally, make sure deletion actually works. If your retention policy says files are destroyed after a period, the AI material has to be inside the thing that gets destroyed, or you have a gap between your policy and your practice.

Making the decision once

Add two lines to your retention policy: AI conversations created for a matter are retained for the same period as the matter file, and are destroyed with it. Then tell fee earners what to keep: the conversations that produced something relied on, cleaned up and saved to the file in the normal way, with the exploratory noise discarded as they go.

That gives you one clock, one place to look, and a consistent answer if anyone ever asks.

Where Alesis fits

Alesis keeps one conversation for a matter, so the record of what was asked and answered sits in one place rather than scattered across inboxes and personal accounts. Each answer names the page or the official source it came from, which is what makes an old conversation useful later. A firm's information is held in the UK, processed only in the UK and the EU, kept apart from every other firm, and never used to train anything for anyone else. Alesis assists qualified professionals and does not replace them, and it does not provide legal advice.