Law firm folks keep asking the same thing in 2025: is ChatGPT Plus actually safe to use? With confidentiality, privilege, and picky client rules in the mix, the answer is “sometimes,” and only if you set it up the right way.

Here’s the plan: how ChatGPT Plus treats your data, what the retention and training toggles really do, and the privacy settings worth fixing on day one. We’ll talk privilege risks, data residency headaches, and the gaps you can’t ignore with consumer tools. You’ll also get clear “use vs. don’t use” scenarios, a simple redaction workflow, and a due‑diligence checklist. And when the stakes jump, I’ll show you when to hand things off to a firm‑managed platform like LegalSoul.

TL;DR — Is ChatGPT Plus safe for law firms in 2025?

Short version: it’s fine for low‑risk, non‑identifying work if you lock down the settings and train people. The second you touch client names, strategy, or regulated data, move that work somewhere with tight controls.

OpenAI says consumer ChatGPT may use your chats to improve models unless you switch off Chat History & Training. Even with that off, a little operational logging can stick around briefly for abuse monitoring. Bar guidance—like The Florida Bar’s Proposed Advisory Opinion 24‑1 (2024)—keeps hammering the basics: be competent, protect confidences, supervise your tools. Set bright‑line rules, check them quarterly, and keep client facts out of Plus. Use it for marketing drafts, neutral checklists, and public‑source summaries. Keep privilege and high‑stakes work elsewhere.

Key Points

• Use ChatGPT Plus only for low‑risk, non‑identifying tasks. Anything with client names, privilege, or regulated data should live in a firm‑managed platform like LegalSoul with audit trails and retention controls.
• Fix settings up front: disable Chat History & Training, use Temporary/Incognito chats, restrict GPTs/actions and file uploads, enforce SSO/2FA and firm accounts, and redact carefully. Note: limited backend logs may exist for a short time.
• Mind the governance gaps: Plus doesn’t give you strong admin, audit logs, DLP, or reliable EU/UK residency. Get DPAs/SCCs, map data flows, honor client OCGs, and keep EU/UK client data out of Plus if residency is required.
• Decision flow: public/generic work → Plus; any client facts/strategy or regulated content → LegalSoul; gray areas → Risk/IT. Keep an incident playbook and recheck vendor retention terms every quarter.

How ChatGPT Plus processes data (2025 overview)

Think of Plus as a consumer app built for convenience. By default, your content can be used to improve models unless you turn off Chat History & Training. Temporary/Incognito chats help reduce footprints, but short‑term operational logs may still exist to catch abuse.

The API is different: historically no training by default and clearer retention windows (often around 30 days). That “ChatGPT Plus vs API data usage differences” matters for lawyers. Also watch custom GPTs and file uploads—knowledge files can stick with your account and, depending on settings, even share data with the GPT builder. In 2024, OpenAI noted that turning off history stops training use, but some brief logging can still occur before deletion. Treat the toggles as necessary, not sufficient. And for “Temporary Chat / Incognito mode ChatGPT legal” workflows, sanitize prompts: no names, no matter IDs, no one‑of‑a‑kind fact patterns.

Confidentiality and attorney‑client privilege implications

Privilege takes a hit when client confidences go to a third party without proper safeguards. Courts and bars often view vetted vendors as agents when you document necessity and confidentiality—think e‑discovery or hosting. The risk with consumer AI isn’t intent, it’s leakage: training reuse, third‑party GPT actions, or loose settings.

Bar guidance (again, see The Florida Bar’s Proposed Advisory Opinion 24‑1) stresses confidentiality and supervision. Two quick tests: would you send this to a random contractor, and would you defend the disclosure on a privilege log? Watch out for “re‑identification by narrative.” Even with names removed, a unique timeline can point straight at your client. Keep Plus prompts generic and public‑source based, and log your “Attorney–client privilege risks with AI tools” analysis in the matter file: vendor, controls, purpose, and limits.

Data retention and training: what is kept and for how long

Two points from OpenAI’s public info: consumer ChatGPT may train on your data unless you disable chat history, and even then, short‑term logs can exist for security. The API, by contrast, has typically avoided training on customer inputs and published more specific retention windows.

Let that guide your task choices. For anything sensitive, look for “Zero‑retention or short‑retention modes legal AI.” Put a reminder to check the “OpenAI data retention policy ChatGPT Plus” every quarter—terms change, and clients will ask when you last verified. A real‑world example: a team moved marketing work to Plus but left history on; a month later, old pitch decks popped up in the sidebar. The fix was settings plus training: purge old chats, no file uploads in Plus. Map retention to legal holds so you know where prompts/outputs live and how to preserve or delete.

Privacy and security settings lawyers should change immediately

Before anyone uses Plus for firm work, make a few non‑negotiables. Disable Chat History & Training (Settings > Data controls) and confirm it by creating a throwaway chat and checking the sidebar. Use Temporary/Incognito for anything even slightly sensitive.

Block third‑party Actions/plugins, allowlist only firm‑approved GPTs, and turn off auto file syncing. Require SSO/2FA and password managers. No personal accounts for firm work. Do a monthly “permissions stand‑down” to catch re‑enabled history, new GPT actions, or rogue exports in personal cloud folders. If you’re rolling out “Disable Chat History and Training instructions” to a bunch of users, send screenshots or a quick video. Keep an inventory of who has Plus, which settings are enforced, and what use cases are allowed.

GPTs, tools, and third‑party integrations: hidden data flows

Custom GPTs can browse, call APIs, or use “knowledge” files. Each door is a way for your content to travel. If a GPT calls an external API, your prompt—or the model’s intermediate steps—might get sent out. Some GPT settings even share data with the builder.

OpenAI’s 2024 docs flagged that actions and shared knowledge can expose content depending on configuration. Treat unvetted GPTs like unknown vendors. A simple example: someone pasted a private link into a marketing GPT with web access, and the content went to an outside scraper. The fix: block link previews and use a firm‑approved allowlist. Lock things down at the network/DNS layer and monitor odd destinations. Explain to staff how actions work, where knowledge files live, and how to request approval. With the API, you can log every call and whitelist domains; with Plus, you’re relying a lot more on user behavior.

Data residency, cross‑border transfers, and client guidelines

Clients care where processing happens. If you have EU/UK matters, check whether your setup supports “Data residency EU/UK compliance for ChatGPT.” Consumer Plus may process globally; enterprise/API routes sometimes offer regional options or stronger promises via DPAs.

EU‑to‑US transfers usually ride on SCCs or another mechanism—make sure your vendor provides them. For PHI or export‑controlled work, keep that data out of Plus entirely. Build a quick matrix: matter geography, client rule (e.g., “EU only”), tool capability, and your workaround. Example: a UK client barred tools without EU processing. The firm used Plus only for public prompts and sent client‑specific drafting to a managed platform with EU data residency and signed DPA/SCCs (“DPAs and SCCs for AI vendors (law firms)”). Another tip: preprocess locally (redact and generalize) and send only abstract text to the model. Document the choice in the matter file for audits.

Governance gaps with consumer tools and how firms should compensate

Consumer tools don’t give you much: weak centralized admin, thin audit logs, no DLP, and messy retention. So add your own guardrails. Centralize billing/ownership of Plus accounts, enforce SSO/2FA, capture usage with a CASB or secure web gateway, and block client data uploads.

Define approved use cases with tags like “Marketing” or “Research.” Track a “Shadow AI index” (unmanaged accounts vs. issued seats) and drive it down by offering a sanctioned path that’s almost as convenient. One mid‑size firm found 40% of Plus usage on personal accounts; after a 10‑minute onboarding and clear rules, that fell under 5% in a quarter. Coordinate with records and e‑discovery on whether prompts/outputs are records and how to put them on hold. If you can’t log activity, keep Plus away from privileged matters and anything likely to be discovered.

Approved vs. prohibited use cases for ChatGPT Plus

Okay to use (with redaction): marketing copy, public‑source summaries, neutral checklists, public template clauses, brainstorming arguments without client facts, and internal training materials based on public law.

Off‑limits: client names or identifiable facts, litigation strategy, settlement numbers, drafts with confidential terms, PHI/PCI/export‑controlled data, and anything a client’s OCG forbids. Gray areas—like due diligence outlines tied to a specific client—should go to a managed platform or to Risk/IT. A quick test: if adding the client or matter name would help the prompt, it probably doesn’t belong in Plus. Don’t assume switching off history fixes “Attorney–client privilege risks with AI tools.” The use case drives the risk; settings just lower it a bit.

Operational safeguards to reduce risk

Make prompts clean and structured. Use a “Redaction protocol for legal AI prompts” with placeholders ([CLIENT], [OPPOSING PARTY], [MATTER‑ID], [JURISDICTION]) and abstract unusual facts (“2017 backdated options” becomes “historical equity timing concern”). Build prompt templates for routine tasks: “Summarize X public regulation; avoid speculation; cite sections.”

Verify outputs and add citations. Mark drafts “Requires Legal Review.” For internal training, test with synthetic data first. A handy trick: reversible tokens—swap client names with salted tokens, keep the map locally, re‑hydrate after review. If someone slips and pastes restricted info into Plus, save the chat, alert Risk/IT, request deletion, and document training. Tiny habits—using Temporary/Incognito and avoiding file uploads—prevent most mistakes.

Due diligence checklist before turning on any AI

Treat this like procurement, not a weekend experiment. Get a DPA, SCCs if needed, and security docs (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001/27701, pentest summary, SDLC notes). Ask how the vendor handles model training, retention windows, sub‑processors, and regional processing. Request “DPAs and SCCs for AI vendors (law firms)” templates.

Confirm admin, logging, and offboarding. If the tool can’t log enough, add a CASB/secure web gateway to capture usage and block uploads. Map data flows end‑to‑end. Pilot with a small group. Run a tabletop: an associate pastes a client timeline into Plus—how do you detect, notify, delete, and talk to the client? Record your risk call in a short memo with bar rules and OCGs. Keep an “exit file” with settings, change logs, and contacts. Review quarterly: retention, sub‑processors, and new features that might impact confidentiality.

When to move beyond ChatGPT Plus: legal‑grade controls with LegalSoul

Once you’re dealing with privilege, client names, or regulated material, hand it to a platform built for law firms. LegalSoul gives you the speed without the heartburn: no training on your data, zero‑ or short‑retention modes, regional processing, and firm‑managed workspaces.

You get SSO, role‑based access, audit logs, matter segmentation, ethical walls, and DLP. Guardrails for redaction and prompt‑injection are baked in. Compliance paperwork—DPAs, SCCs, security reports—comes ready for client audits. One mid‑market firm shifted privileged drafting and depo prep to LegalSoul while keeping public ideation in Plus. They cut redaction mistakes, sped up reviews, and had clean audit trails for client checks. As OCGs tighten, offering “Zero‑retention or short‑retention modes legal AI” is a selling point in RFPs. Make the safe path the easy path: single sign‑on, familiar templates, and unified search.

Sample AI‑use policy language for law firms (plug‑and‑adapt)

Scope: Lawyers and staff may use AI tools only for approved, low‑risk tasks (marketing, public‑source summaries, neutral checklists). Client‑identifying facts, litigation strategy, settlement terms, and regulated data are prohibited in consumer tools, including ChatGPT Plus.

Settings: Firm accounts only; SSO/2FA required. Chat History & Training off; Temporary/Incognito preferred. Actions/plugins and unvetted GPTs off by default. Data handling: follow the redaction protocol; use placeholders; no file uploads. Outputs must say “Draft—Requires Legal Review” and include citations when relevant.

Governance: Store prompts/outputs for client work in approved repositories only. Violations trigger incident response. Escalation: Gray areas need approval by the Practice Group Leader and Risk/IT. Client OCG overrides: if a client bans AI, tools are disabled for that matter code. Keep this “Acceptable use policy for AI in law firms” next to your confidentiality and tech policies, with a 15‑minute onboarding and a quarterly attestation.

FAQs partners and GCs ask in 2025

• If training is off, is client data safe? Safer, not safe. Short‑term operational logs may still exist. Keep client facts out of Plus.
• Does Temporary Chat prevent storage? It avoids saving to your account and training, but some backend logs can persist briefly. Use it only for non‑identifying prompts.
• Can we meet EU client residency demands? Not reliably with Plus. Use a managed platform with EU processing and SCCs.
• What about GPTs that call external APIs? Treat them as separate vendors. Content may be shared. Use a firm‑approved allowlist.
• How do we handle client outside counsel guidelines on AI use? Centralize OCG clauses, tag matters that bar AI, and enforce technical blocks for those codes.
• Can we cite outputs? Yes, but verify and add citations. Keep a record of prompts and sources for audits.
• What do we log? Who used AI, when, for what category, and where outputs live. It helps audits and incident response.
• Are there insurance implications? Some cyber policies now ask about generative AI controls. Document what you’ve put in place.

Bottom line and decision flow

Ask three things before you open Plus: does this include client‑identifying or privileged information, do client OCGs or laws limit this, and do I need admin logs or residency assurances? If any answer is yes, go to LegalSoul.

If not, use Plus with redaction, history/training off, and Temporary/Incognito. Simple flow: public/generic → Plus; any client facts/strategy → LegalSoul; gray area → Risk/IT. Keep a kill switch for matters where clients forbid AI. Recheck vendor terms each quarter; policies move fast. The firms winning RFPs aren’t dodging AI—they’re showing they can prove who saw what, when, and where it was processed.

Conclusion

ChatGPT Plus can be a safe helper for low‑risk, non‑identifying tasks—after you lock down settings, use Temporary chats, and actually redact. The moment client confidences, privilege, or residency rules show up, switch to a firm‑managed platform with real governance and retention controls.

Next steps: audit your Plus settings, adopt a short acceptable‑use policy, and map your client OCGs. When you’re ready to handle sensitive work without the stress, route it to LegalSoul. Book a demo to see legal‑grade controls, zero/short‑term retention, and matter‑level governance built for law firms.