GC AI runs live legal AI classes for in-house lawyers. Several are eligible for California MCLE credit, so a legal AI CLE here also leaves you with a skill you use the next morning.
You can join an open class or have one built privately around your own team's contracts and approval processes. Either way the session is live, not a recording, and small enough that you can ask about the agreement in front of you.
GC AI is the enterprise legal AI platform built for in-house teams by Cecilia Ziniti, who was a general counsel three times over and worked in-house at Amazon and Cruise before that. More than 2,100 legal teams use it, including over 300 public companies.
The classes work on the documents you know: NDAs, DPAs, commercial leases, and board consents. Cecilia and the GC AI solutions attorneys built the curriculum, and they are practicing lawyers who spend the rest of their week helping in-house departments put AI into daily use, so the examples come from work they have actually had to do.
What you learn goes past prompting. You practice writing a prompt so the answer holds up to a lawyer's read. You pull what you need out of a long agreement without reading every page. You build a playbook that applies your company's standard positions on its own, so every NDA and MSA gets reviewed the same way.
GC AI has taught more than 8,000 lawyers through its AI courses for legal professionals. Here is what some of them said afterward:
"The right mix of learning so we, as lawyers, can understand the technology and also get practical hands on training." -Sandra, General Counsel at Aqua Comms
"Priceless opportunity to really learn how to effectively prompt and use the system to get the best results." -Vallie, General Counsel at Melton
"Highly recommend this course for any Legal or Compliance Teams starting to explore AI." -Whitney, Compliance Manager at HopSkipDrive
What Counts Toward California's Requirement
California lawyers complete 25 MCLE hours every three years, including at least 4 hours of legal ethics and 1 hour on technology in the practice of law. A legal AI class is the natural home for that technology hour, and the ethics hours can come from the same catalog: GC AI's Level 110 class is built entirely around the ethics duties that attach to AI.
Outside California, eligibility depends on your state bar. Some states accept out-of-state or self-reported credit for accredited programs, so check your bar's current rules before you count the hours. The class content is the same in any state, and only the credit treatment changes.
CLE-Eligible Legal AI Classes
Four GC AI Classes are eligible for California MCLE credit:
Level 101: Intro to AI for In-House Legal. 75 minutes live, 1 hour of California CLE credit.
Level 201: Advanced AI for In-House Legal. 60 minutes live, 1.25 hours of California CLE credit.
Level 110: Legal AI Ethics for In-House Legal. 60 minutes live, California MCLE-eligible.
Custom Class for Your Team. 60 minutes live and private, California MCLE-eligible.
Level 101: Intro to AI for In-House Legal
If you have never used AI on legal work, or you have tried it and gotten back something you would never send, 101 is where that changes.
The class opens on the framing the whole curriculum runs on: AI is a smart, fast, sometimes over-eager intern that has read every book, every case, and every contract in EDGAR, and your job is to direct it well.
From there you learn the anatomy of a strong prompt, why "review this" fails where "please review the attached supply agreement for unusual or particularly risky provisions for us as the buyer" works, and how to iterate when the first answer misses.
Most of the hour is hands-on. You pick a document, a software vendor MSA, a commercial lease, a supplier code of conduct, or something from your own queue, run a real analysis on it, and grade what comes back.
Runs 75 minutes, live, with breakout exercises
Carries 1 hour of California CLE credit
No prior AI knowledge required, so it works as a first class for an entire department
Instructors: Phil Lamothe, Lindsay Smith, Taylor Robertson, or Brittany Pfister, solutions attorneys at GC AI. Phil spent his in-house career as a contract attorney doing the redlining this class teaches you to delegate. Lindsay practiced commercial real estate at a large firm, then ran knowledge management for both in-house and firm teams. Cecilia Ziniti teaches the class herself several times a year.
Level 201: Advanced AI for In-House Legal
201 is for the lawyer who already uses AI daily and has hit a ceiling. It starts under the hood: how a prompt actually moves through a model, what changes when the AI can browse the web, and what changes again when it can dispatch sub-agents to build something like a 50-state survey. You learn what a context window is and why filling one with every document you have makes the answers worse rather than better.
Then it gets practical. You write a wizard prompt that makes the AI interview you before it drafts. You compare two versions of an agreement and get back a table of what moved and why. You pull 78 properties out of a lease schedule into a clean table. And you practice the habits that keep advanced work honest: forcing clarifying questions, giving the AI an out, telling it to double-check itself, and not leading the witness.
Runs 60 minutes, live, with three breakout exercises
Carries 1.25 hours of California CLE credit
Assumes some AI familiarity or completion of the 101 class
Instructors: Brittany Pfister and Phil Lamothe, solutions attorneys at GC AI, with Cecilia Ziniti teaching selected sessions. Cecilia was a general counsel three times over and was in-house at Amazon and Cruise before founding GC AI, so the advanced use cases come from work she actually had to do.
Level 110: Legal AI Ethics for In-House Legal
Level 110 is the ethics hour, and it is built around what you can do at the end rather than what the rules say. You leave able to evaluate whether a tool and your workflow can actually support a privilege claim, prompt in a way that makes hallucinations less likely, verify output for accuracy, and use AI to audit its own work.
The class walks ABA Formal Opinion 512 back to the Model Rules it rests on, covering competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, and communication. It teaches you what a wrong answer looks like before you send it: output that mirrors your prompt a little too neatly, extreme confidence with no caveats, citations with no links, circular reasoning. And it teaches through real enforcement rather than principle.
In Mata v. Avianca, the sanction followed the failure to verify, not the use of AI. In Tremblay v. OpenAI, a lawyer's pre-suit AI testing held up as protected work product. A live exercise has the room grade real scenarios red, yellow, or green.
Runs 60 minutes, live
California MCLE-eligible, and a natural fit for California's ethics requirement
No prerequisite, so it works as a first class for a team that wants the guardrails settled before the tooling
Also covers Canadian, UK, and EU guidance, including the EU AI Act's AI literacy obligation
Instructor: an experienced GC AI solutions attorney
Custom Class for Your Team
If you want a class built on your company's own documents rather than sample contracts, this is the one. At GC AI we build the session around your team's actual agreements, playbooks, and approval processes, so the workflow patterns your lawyers practice in class are the ones they use the following week. It runs privately for your legal department, and at 4.9 it is the highest-rated class in the catalog.
It suits a team that has already decided to adopt AI and needs everyone moving at once, rather than a few enthusiasts pulling ahead of the department.
Runs 60 minutes, live and private to your team
California MCLE-eligible
Built on your company's own documents and workflows
Includes a 30-day trial of GC AI for the team
Instructor: Cecilia Ziniti, founder and CEO, or a senior GC AI solutions attorney
AI Ethics CLE: What the Duties Actually Require
The Level 110 class exists because the ethics questions on AI stopped being commentary and became bar-level obligations. ABA Formal Opinion 512 frames three duties for generative AI: competence with the technology you use, confidentiality when client data touches an AI system, and supervision of AI-assisted work. The State Bar of California's practical guidance on generative AI reads output verification as part of the competence duty, and its Board of Trustees updated that guidance in May 2026 to address agentic AI.
Those duties are easy to state and harder to operationalize, which is the gap the 110 class closes. Verifying an output before you send it, keeping client data inside enterprise terms, and knowing what the platform did on your behalf are habits rather than policies. Privilege is where the stakes show up first: in the Heppner ruling, a court found no privilege at all over a defendant's use of a consumer AI tool, and the tool's own terms were part of why. The class puts it plainly: you check an intern's work, so check your AI's.
More Legal AI Courses for Legal Professionals
These classes do not carry CLE credit. They are what teams take next, once the basics are in place. Every one runs live and is taught by an experienced GC AI solutions attorney or advisor:
Level 105: AI in Word for In-House Legal: If your day happens inside Microsoft Word, this class keeps it there: orienting yourself to a contract you have never seen, generating redlines that apply as your own tracked changes, reading the counterparty's markup back as a list of business issues and legal issues, and turning your own margin comments into a task list grouped by whose approval you need.
Level 106: Building Playbooks in GC AI: A playbook captures your preferred positions, fallbacks, and escalation rules so every NDA and MSA gets reviewed the same way. The class covers the anatomy of a good one, how whose-paper and deal context change the output, how to read the pass, redline, and escalation categories, and how Smart Checks surface clauses your playbook never anticipated.
Level 121: Legal Ops, Rolling Out Legal AI: A change management playbook for legal ops, built to hold up whatever your AI maturity stage or tool. Taught by a GC AI solutions advisor.
Level 202: Building With Agentic AI: How to build agentic workflows across the legal work that recurs, with lifetime access to the replay and materials.
Every class is grounded in the platform the legal teams at Liquid Death, Columbia Sportswear, Eventbrite, and Arc'teryx use daily. The skills transfer to legal AI work generally, so the hour holds its value whatever your team runs.
Your next compliance cycle needs a technology hour and four ethics hours regardless. The only question is whether you spend them on a recording you half-watch or on an hour that changes how your team works.
Take the 101 class with a real contract from your own queue. You leave with California CLE credit, a prompt structure that holds up, and an answer ready the next time your CEO asks what legal is doing with AI.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do Existing Ethics Rules Apply to AI Use, or Are There New Rules?
There are no new, standalone ethics rules for AI. The existing rules on competence, confidentiality, supervision, and candor govern how lawyers use it, which is what ABA Formal Opinion 512 sets out and what the State Bar of California's practical guidance reinforces. GC AI's Level 110 class teaches those duties as working habits rather than as rules to memorize.
Are Lawyers Responsible for Errors in AI-Generated Work?
Yes. The duty of competence requires lawyers to independently verify AI output, including research, citations, and analysis, before relying on it or submitting it to a court. Mata v. Avianca is the cautionary case: the sanction followed the failure to verify, not the use of AI itself.
Can Lawyers Input Client Information into AI Tools?
Only where the tool has adequate security and confidentiality protections. Review the vendor's data retention and training policies to confirm that your information is not used to train models or disclosed to third parties. The Heppner ruling made the stakes concrete: a court found no privilege over a defendant's use of a consumer AI tool, and the tool's own consumer terms were part of the reason.
Do Lawyers Need to Disclose AI Use to Clients?
Not universally. Lawyers must keep clients informed where AI use is relevant to the matter, to the fees charged, or to the confidentiality of client data. In-house, the same reasoning applies to the business teams and executives who rely on your work.
Must Lawyers Disclose AI Use to Courts?
Many courts have issued standing orders requiring attorneys to disclose AI use and to certify that a human has reviewed and verified every citation. Requirements vary by court, so check the local rules for your jurisdiction and judge before filing.
Can Lawyers Bill Clients for Time Saved by Using AI?
No. Lawyers may bill only for time actually spent, such as drafting prompts and reviewing output, and the fee still has to be reasonable. ABA Formal Opinion 512 addresses this directly under the duty on reasonable fees.
Does AI Ethics Training Count Toward CLE Requirements?
In many jurisdictions, yes. A class that applies the existing conduct rules to AI tools maps to both ethics and technology credit. GC AI's Level 110 ethics class is eligible for California MCLE credit, and California requires at least 4 hours of legal ethics and 1 hour on technology in the practice of law every three years.
How Many CLE Hours Are GC AI's Classes Worth?
Level 101 carries 1 hour of California CLE credit, and Level 201 carries 1.25 hours. Both run live (75 and 60 minutes) with former general counsels and GC AI solutions attorneys teaching, and the 60-minute Level 110 ethics class and the custom team class are also California MCLE-eligible.
Is GC AI's Legal AI CLE Eligible Outside California?
The classes are California CLE-eligible today, and treatment elsewhere depends on your state bar's rules for out-of-state or self-reported credit. Check your bar's current cycle requirements before counting the hours.
