As artificial intelligence becomes a standard part of legal work, understanding the intersection of AI and legal ethics is more important than ever. AI tools promise greater efficiency, speed, and insight. However, their use must be guided by the same ethical standards set forth in the ABA Model Rules.
In this blog, I’ll share insights from a CLE webinar I hosted with my colleague and former litigation support professional, Kim Bookout. I’ll explain why continuing education on the ethics of AI use should be a top priority for law firms and legal professionals. Then, I’ll provide an overview and examples of how the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct apply to AI.
Why continuous education on AI and legal ethics is essential
AI is being used across the legal industry. It delivers benefits but also introduces new risks for misuse. Without proper education and enablement, mistakes can undermine both legal work and client trust.
AI adoption and the risks of misuse
According to research from Ari Kaplan Advisors, 84 percent of partners surveyed adopted new AI tools in the past year. Additionally, 81 percent believe that AI is essential to stay competitive. For many, it may seem obvious that lawyers using AI must comply with established ethical standards. Yet inaccurate or hallucinated AI-generated content routinely shows up in legal work.
The AI hallucination tracking database from researcher and data analyst Damien Charlotin, indicates that in 2025 there were more than 700 legal decisions in cases where GenAI produced hallucinated content. This illustrates a potential disconnect between the philosophical understanding and practical application of legal ethics to AI.
The rapid evolution of AI
One factor contributing to the gap between AI understanding and application is a constant state of change. The number of AI solutions continues to grow, and there are near-weekly breakthroughs in AI technology itself. As AI becomes embedded in existing tech stacks, a single training is no longer sufficient.
“AI is just going to be a part of all the tools you use in your practice,” said Kim Bookout during the webinar. “You’re going to be able use the tools and processes you’ve always used but have them be augmented by generative AI.”
Legal teams and lawyers must establish and maintain an ongoing understanding of how the AI they use works. They should also stay up to date on advancements and consider how changes impact the practice of law.
Changing client expectations around AI use
Clients are asking how their counsel are using AI. And courts are sanctioning parties for getting it wrong. At the same time, firms that adopt AI responsibly are gaining a clear competitive advantage. Clients will expect you to be conversant in how those tools work and how you are using them on their matters.
Ensuring alignment between AI and legal ethics
AI does not change your duties, but it may change how you discharge them. So, how can you safely incorporate GenAI into your practice? Use the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules as a lens to consider your ethical duties.
Published in July 2024, the ABA Formal Opinion 512 specifically addresses the use of AI. It says, “To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.”
From the ABA Model Rules, we can identify the core requirements that apply when using AI to accelerate and enhance legal workflows.
- Competence
- Confidentiality
- Communication
- Supervision of lawyers and nonlawyers
- Meritorious claims and candor to the tribunal
- Reasonable fees
Note: While this will offer a strong foundation, it’s important to also consider any local, state, and federal guidance that may be applicable to your case as well.
The three Cs: Competence, communication, and confidentiality
Competence, communication, and confidentiality form the foundation of ethical AI use in legal practice. Each plays a critical role in ensuring that technology enhances, rather than undermines, legal expertise.
Competence (Rule 1.1)
Competent representation requires legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation. Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 specifies that this includes understanding the benefits and risks of relevant technology. Applying this to AI and ethical use, lawyers should:
- Understand, at a high level, how large language models work and how they handle client data
- Stay up to date with capabilities, considerations, and use cases through CLEs and firm training
- Build verification steps into AI-assisted workflows, validate outputs and apply legal expertise
You do not need to be a developer, but you do need to understand enough to spot risk, ask the right questions, and design defensible processes.
Communication (Rule 1.4)
Model Rule 1.4 addresses communication. It requires lawyers to reasonably consult with clients about how you intend to accomplish their objectives. Under some circumstances, that may mean the disclosure of your use of GenAI. While some attorneys err on the side of disclosure across the board, your approach may depend on the tool you’re using and use case. In practice, lawyers should consider:
- How the use of AI supports client goals through efficiency or value
- Disclosure of when and how you are using AI in client matters
- Providing your firm’s AI policy and an overview of your typical AI use proactively
Making communication about AI a part of your client engagement and onboarding offers several advantages. It gives you the opportunity to highlight the impact that AI solutions will bring to their case and how they give the client a competitive edge. At the same time, you can offer transparency about how your legal team verifies and engages with AI outputs to ensure the client is comfortable with your use of that tool.
Confidentiality (Rule 1.6)
When using AI to assist with legal work involving client data, confidentiality is central to ethical AI use. ABA Model Rule 1.6 details a lawyer’s responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of client information. It also states that a lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of or access to confidential information.
Applying confidentiality to AI means that lawyers must:
- Understand what a tool is going to do with client data–Will it store inputs, train its models on them, or transmit data
- Avoid consumer-grade tools that are not configured for legal use
- Anonymize or mask client data when working in general-purpose systems
The obligation is not just to avoid disclosure, but to make “reasonable efforts” to prevent unauthorized access. That includes due diligence on vendors and clear internal policies on how staff and counsel may use AI.
Fees, candor, and supervision in an AI-enabled practice
Beyond the three Cs, additional ethical duties shape how AI should be used in practice. These include reasonable fees, candor to the tribunal, and the duty to supervise both people and technology.
Reasonable fees (Rule 1.5)
Rule 1.5 prohibits lawyers from charging and collecting unreasonable fees or an unreasonable amount for expenses—this applies to technology. If charging a technology fee for AI, firms should consider:
- Whether technology charges are reasonable in light of the value delivered
- How to balance reductions in manual review hours with cost recovery for AI
During the AI and legal ethics webinar, Kim Bookout spoke about what she’s seeing in the market saying, “Many of our clients are figuring out ways to share the cost of some of these tools, because there is a direct benefit and value to the client, the case, and the firm as well.”
Candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3)
Rule 3.3 prohibits knowingly making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal or court and requires lawyers to correct any false statement of material fact or law if discovered later. This means that when using AI to identify potential legal claims, arguments, or research, lawyers must:
- Verify any brief or motion that incorporates AI-generated citations
- Build checks into workflows that use AI for research or analysis
- Treat AI results as suggestions or drafts
The rule on meritorious claims and contentions is closely linked. If you use AI to brainstorm or identify potential claims, defenses, or causes of action, you must independently confirm that they are legally sound before advancing them.
Duty to supervise (Rules 5.1 and 5.3)
RRule 5.1 addresses the responsibility of lawyers playing a managerial role to supervise other lawyers to ensure compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2012, rule 5.3 clarified that lawyers must supervise both nonlawyer assistants and nonlawyer assistance they rely on—extending their duty to supervise to GenAI software.
The rule essentially applies the same rules for new and junior legal professionals to AI, so lawyers:
- Must review outputs and correct any inaccuracies in work provided to you by AI
- Consider that they remain fully responsible for the final product
In many firms, this extension of the duty to supervise can be seen in internal AI policies, technology training, and standard operating procedures. This documentation should outline permitted use cases, review expectations, and escalation paths if needed.
How to use AI ethically in legal workflows
As the number of AI use cases grows from discovery to depositions, ethical use must always be top of mind. Below are some common use cases and how the ethics rules apply.
Applying AI to discovery
AI is well suited to discovery workflows, including searching large data volumes, identifying key people, organizations, and events, and summarizing document sets tied to specific issues or witnesses. However, its use introduces important ethical considerations, requiring lawyers to ensure competence, protect client confidentiality, and uphold their duty to supervise AI in line with established professional standards.
- Incorporate GenAI into discovery planning and ESI protocols where appropriate
- Consider whether prompts and outputs themselves may be discoverable
- Advise clients not to paste privileged communications into public AI tools
- Evaluate the cost of AI-driven review against manual review and explain those trade-offs to clients
Used properly, AI can make discovery more efficient and, in many cases, more affordable, while still meeting competence and confidentiality obligations.
Using AI for drafting and research
AI can accelerate drafting and research for lawyers and legal teams. This includes assisting with emails and motions as well as surfacing relevant topics and summarizing materials. Ethical considerations include maintaining confidentiality, supervision, and candor to the court.
- Ensure the tool is built for legal use and helps maintain privilege
- Anonymize client details where appropriate to protect confidentiality
- Verify all outputs, including citations, case law, and legal arguments
- Recognize that time savings may be offset by the need for thorough verification
Using AI for drafting and research can streamline legal workflows, but only when paired with disciplined validation and the use of appropriate, vetted tools
Enhancing case analysis, depositions, and trial preparation with AI
Across the litigation lifecycle, AI can support case analysis, deposition preparation, and trial readiness by identifying key events, summarizing testimony, generating outlines, and highlighting inconsistencies. To balance AI with legal ethics:
- Ensure that your AI tool protects confidential case data
- Confirm events, summaries, and connections are consistent with source documents
- Recognize the potential for bias and limitations within large language models
AI can strengthen preparation and insight across the litigation lifecycle, but legal judgment and ethical responsibility must remain top of mind.
Conclusion
AI offers tremendous potential to enhance legal workflows, but its adoption must be balanced with ethical responsibility and professional diligence. Legal teams must stay informed about technological advancements, rely on vetted solutions, and apply ethical guardrails to protect clients and maintain trust. By combining innovation with careful oversight, legal professionals can confidently leverage AI to improve outcomes and deliver greater value.
Explore how Opus 2 addresses AI and legal ethics
Opus 2 AI is designed with ethical considerations in mind and supports AI best practices in legal workflows. Opus 2 AI uses case documents to develop answers, provides linked citations for verification, and enables quick human review when extracting facts and building work product, improving confidence in outputs. Learn more about our AI approach, and request a demo to see it in action.
