Embracing AI in CoSec
AI in Corporate Secretarial Services for Investment Funds
1/16/20263 min read
AI in Corporate Secretarial Services for Investment Funds: Practical Use, Real Limits, and Governance Reality
Artificial Intelligence is no longer experimental. Across industries—from finance to compliance to operations—its use has become a necessity rather than a differentiator. Corporate Secretarial (CoSec) services in the investment funds industry are no exception.
The relevant question for fund managers, boards, and governance professionals is no longer whether AI is being used, but how it is used, controlled, and supervised—and by whom.
This article explores the practical application of AI in CoSec services, the real advantages, the non-negotiable risks, and why senior-led boutique CoSec firms are uniquely positioned to deploy AI safely and effectively.
AI in CoSec: What “use” actually means
In a Corporate Secretarial context, AI is not about replacing judgment or decision-making. Its value lies in supporting execution, for example:
drafting first versions of minutes, resolutions, and standard documents
consistency checks across governance documentation
summarisation of long board materials for internal preparation
cross-checking references, dates, and structural logic
supporting internal knowledge retrieval and precedent identification
Used correctly, AI acts as a force multiplier, not a decision-maker.
The confidentiality baseline: local and controlled AI
For investment funds, confidentiality is not optional.
This immediately excludes uncontrolled, publicly accessible AI tools from professional CoSec usage.
A secure and defensible model typically involves:
locally installed AI models (on-premise or private infrastructure)
no client data shared with public AI platforms
controlled prompts, outputs, and access rights
auditability of usage
This approach aligns closely with the standards already applied by large institutions—and can be implemented just as effectively within smaller, well-structured firms.
Key advantages of AI adoption in boutique CoSec firms
1. Immediate senior oversight of AI output
In small, senior-led CoSec firms, AI-assisted work is reviewed directly by the same partners or senior professionals responsible for delivery.
This means:
AI hallucinations are detected immediately
inconsistencies are corrected before documents leave the firm
judgment is applied without escalation delays
There is no loss of time or clarity through hierarchical chains.
2. Faster turnaround without sacrificing quality
AI significantly reduces time spent on repetitive drafting and formatting tasks.
The saved time is reinvested in:
deeper review
governance judgment
contextual alignment with the fund’s broader narrative
Speed improves, but accountability remains human.
3. Consistency across large document populations
AI helps maintain consistency across:
recurring board packs
multi-entity structures
repeated resolutions and registers
This is particularly valuable for funds with:
SPV-heavy structures
credit or transaction-driven vehicles
frequent corporate actions
4. Scalability without compromising confidentiality
When deployed locally and securely, AI allows small CoSec teams to:
absorb workload peaks
support multiple strategies
maintain predictable delivery
This creates enterprise-level operational resilience without enterprise-level bureaucracy.
5. Alignment with modern governance expectations
Regulators, auditors, and investors increasingly expect:
structured documentation
consistency across records
traceable governance logic
AI supports these expectations—when used responsibly and transparently.
The non-negotiable risks (and why they must be acknowledged)
AI is not neutral. Ignoring its limitations creates governance risk.
1. Hallucinations and false confidence
AI can produce outputs that appear coherent but are factually or legally incorrect.
In CoSec work, this can affect:
legal wording
factual accuracy
alignment with prior decisions
Unchecked, this risk is unacceptable.
2. Over-reliance and deskilling
If AI output is accepted uncritically, professional judgment erodes.
This is particularly dangerous in governance functions where:
nuance matters
regulatory interpretation evolves
context is critical
AI must support expertise—not replace it.
3. Data leakage and confidentiality exposure
Using public or poorly controlled AI platforms can unintentionally expose:
client names
transaction details
governance structures
This risk alone disqualifies many mainstream AI tools for CoSec use.
4. False sense of equivalence across organisations
AI does not equalise firms automatically.
A poorly governed AI setup in a large organisation can be riskier than a tightly supervised AI model in a small firm.
Why senior-led boutique firms mitigate AI risks effectively
Small, partner-driven CoSec firms bring structural advantages when using AI:
the same individuals who design workflows review outputs
accountability is direct and personal
judgment is applied immediately, not escalated
AI is treated as a tool, not a substitute
governance standards are embedded, not abstracted
In this environment, AI strengthens governance instead of diluting it.
AI does not replace trust — it amplifies how trust is delivered
For investment funds, trust is built on:
accuracy
confidentiality
continuity
defensible decision-making
AI can enhance all of these—but only under strict professional control.
The future of CoSec services is not “human vs AI”.
It is experienced professionals using AI responsibly to deliver better governance outcomes.
AI in Corporate Secretarial services is not a trend, it is an operational reality. The real differentiator lies in how safely, transparently, and intelligently it is implemented.
When used within a controlled, senior-led framework, AI allows boutique CoSec firms to operate at the same technical level as large organisations, while retaining the speed, accountability, and judgment that governance demands.
In the end, governance remains a human responsibility. AI simply helps ensure it is delivered with greater precision.


