My client’s contract says no AI. Does that include meeting notes and proofreading?

You are not generating the client's finished work with AI. You are taking meeting notes, checking grammar or organising research. It is tempting to assume these uses fall outside a “no AI” clause. The actual wording may draw the boundary somewhere else.

Start with the contract and any incorporated AI, security or confidentiality policy. If the restriction is clear, work within it. If it is ambiguous, describe the specific workflow and get clarification before putting client material through the tool.

Identify what the clause restricts

Compare these fictional provisions:

These are different restrictions. None is a universal definition of permitted AI use. Also inspect definitions and exceptions: an approved-tools list may matter, but it may not override a separate restriction on particular data.

Transparency requirements are not confined to finished outputs. As a UK public-procurement example, PPN 017 addresses disclosure of AI use in procurement. It is not a rule for every private client agreement; it illustrates why the purpose and scope of a requirement matter.

Map what you actually do

Use one row per workflow. Avoid a vague request to “use AI responsibly.”

Check the actual product, account type and enabled features. Note what is sent, whether anything is retained, and whether connected services receive it. Record unknowns rather than filling them with marketing language.

Keep permission and technical settings separate

A vendor setting about model training answers a training question. It does not automatically answer questions about storage, access, processing location or contractual approval. Likewise, a local tool might avoid sending data to a provider while still falling within a broad restriction on AI use.

Removing names may reduce exposure, but the remaining text can still contain confidential business details or identifiable information. Do not treat redaction as permission to work around an express restriction.

For meeting notes, approval to use a tool and permission to record the meeting are separate questions. Check the applicable requirements and arrangements for participants rather than assuming that a bot joining the call settles both.

Ask about the workflow, not the buzzword

Adapt this fictional email:

Clause 8 requires prior written consent for AI use. I'd like to clarify one workflow before using it: [tool and account type] to [specific purpose]. The information involved would be [description], and the output would be [use]. Could the authorised contact confirm whether this is permitted and any conditions? Until that is resolved, I will use [non-AI alternative] for this step.

If permission is granted, record the tool, purpose, information boundary, conditions and approving person. Check the contract's approval or amendment process. If the tool or use changes later, check whether the approval still covers it.

If a client refuses, the practical answer may simply be manual notes or another agreed workflow. You do not need to prove that the restriction is a good technology policy to understand what work you have agreed to do.

Apply the same check to a contract-review service

Before uploading to Contracts.money, confirm that you are permitted to share the agreement for an external AI review. The service accepts a PDF or DOCX and emails analysis; it is not an exception to the restrictions you are trying to understand. If permission is uncertain, use the manual worksheet above or an authorised review route first.

For drafting a clear request without sounding confrontational, use these clarification-email examples. If the client changes the contract, check the revised wording rather than relying on a general assurance.