The chart
How much risk each version puts on what you type into it.
Paying for an AI tool and buying the business version of it are two different things. ChatGPT Plus, Claude Pro and Google AI Pro are personal plans. They run on the same consumer terms as the free versions. The protections a lawyer needs come with the business versions, and you can't get them by changing a setting.
How much risk each version puts on what you type into it.
High risk means consumer terms as they come: the company can train on what you type. Turning training off on a personal plan stops that, but you're still on consumer terms, with no data processing agreement, the contract that says the company handles your content only to run the service for you. Business plans come with that contract. Low risk isn't no risk. Anthropic, for one, keeps chats its safety systems flag for up to 2 years on every plan, business included. Prices are per person, per month, billed monthly, from each company's pages on October 27, 2026.
This is where most solo and small-firm lawyers get caught. A $20-a-month subscription buys more usage and better models. It doesn't change the contract. ChatGPT Plus, Claude Pro and Google AI Pro are all governed by the same consumer terms as the free tiers. Anthropic says it plainly: Free, Pro and Max are under its Consumer Terms, and Team, Enterprise and the API are under its Commercial Terms.
It's the same split as Gmail. A firm on Google Workspace has a business agreement with Google. A lawyer running a practice out of a personal gmail.com address doesn't, even if they pay for extra storage.
Most lawyers who worry about AI already put client files in places that raise the same question. A police report emailed from a personal Gmail account, or a discovery folder in a personal Dropbox, sits on consumer terms too. Ask the same thing of all of them: is there a business agreement that says the company handles your data only to run the service for you? If your email runs on Google Workspace or Microsoft 365, you already answered yes once, for email. A business AI plan is the same decision made again.
It fixes one problem and leaves the rest. Turning training off stops OpenAI from using your future chats to train its models. You're still on consumer terms, and there's still no data processing agreement. Your chats still sit in your account until you delete them. Deleted chats take up to 30 days to clear, and OpenAI can keep them longer "for security or legal obligations."
That last exception is not theoretical. In May 2025, a federal court in the New York Times copyright case ordered OpenAI to keep ChatGPT conversations it would otherwise have deleted. The order covered Free, Plus, Pro and Team (now Business). ChatGPT Enterprise and Edu were exempt. The order ended September 26, 2025, but OpenAI says it still holds the conversations it captured from that period, under legal hold.
The other two have their own catches:
So the practical answer to the question: use a personal plan, with training off, for work that has no client information in it. That covers research questions, a draft of a blog post, or a motion template you'll fill in yourself. Anything with a client's name, facts or documents in it goes in a business plan.
The business versions are sold to teams, so a one-lawyer practice pays a little extra for the protection.
Pick one. You don't need all three.
Most legal AI products run on these same companies' APIs, which fall under business terms. Ask any vendor three things: which AI company processes your data, whether it's under that company's commercial terms with training off, and what agreement the vendor has with you.
Plani's answer: Anthropic's API, commercial terms, no training, and our own terms with you on top.
No Massachusetts ethics opinion addresses generative AI yet. In December 2025 the SJC's rules committee looked at whether the rules needed changing for AI and said no, because the existing rules "provide ample guidance." Here is that guidance.
Bar Counsel's own article on AI puts it in one line: "don't enter confidential information when you are using a non-private system."
Practicing in Maine? Opinion 207 (2013) on cloud computing still stands, and it also asks for a careful read of the vendor's terms and security policy.
This is a guide to the terms these companies publish, not legal advice. The terms change often. Check the pages linked below before relying on any line of this chart.