ABA Formal Opinion 512: Fighting The AI-Fire With... Paper

but at least those longer, yellow legal pads...

ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024), is shaking up the legal world by addressing the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal practice. While it probably would've been more helpful in say 2022, Opinion 512 covers critical aspects of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including competence, fees, confidentiality, communication, meritorious claims, candor to the tribunal, supervision, and more. Interestingly, Rule 8.4(g)'s prohibition on bias is absent, though its relevance cannot be overlooked.

Let's break down this Opinion, Rule by Rule, to understand its implications for lawyers today.

Rule 1.1 (Competence)

The Opinion starts by firing a warning shot to the legal profession: AI is no longer optional. Citing Rule 1.1, it suggests that as AI tools continue to develop, lawyers may eventually need to use them to competently serve their clients. This requirement to stay informed about technological advancements ties into the prohibition on unreasonable fees under Rule 1.5. Lawyers must become familiar with AI tools relevant to their work to make informed decisions about whether to use them or choose other means.

The Opinion makes it clear that ignoring AI is not a solution. Lawyers who fail to adapt may find themselves struggling to maintain the level of competence required by Rule 1.1. This is a significant shift, indicating that AI could become as indispensable as email or case management software. The takeaway? Lawyers need to start integrating AI into their practice sooner rather than later.

Rule 1.5 (Fees)

Moving on to Rule 1.5, the Opinion draws on the principles established in Opinion 93-379 (1993), which addressed reasonable fees and client charges. It underscores that lawyers cannot justify upcharging clients simply because they use AI tools that increase efficiency. The costs associated with AI platforms should generally be treated as overhead and not passed on to clients—except for proprietary, in-house AI tools, where some leniency may be allowed.

The Opinion reminsa lawyers that they cannot charge clients for time spent due to their own inexperience with AI. This highlights a key tension: while AI offers efficiency, lawyers must balance this with fairness in billing. As AI continues to evolve, the debate over how to charge for its use will only intensify, potentially forcing the legal industry into a wider reaching value-based billing model.

Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality)

Confidentiality is always a top concern, especially when new tech is involved. The Opinion points out that using AI does not fundamentally differ from using other third-party software like Google, LexisNexis, or case management programs. However, it emphasizes the importance of obtaining informed client consent before inputting confidential information into an AI tool.

Two key takeaways emerge from the Opinion’s discussion of Rule 1.6:

1. Collaboration with clients is essential. Lawyers should work closely with their clients to ensure they are comfortable with how AI is being used in their cases.
2. Before using AI for any purpose involving confidential information, lawyers should pause and consider whether it is necessary and appropriate in that particular instance.

In short, while AI can be a powerful tool, lawyers must remain vigilant about protecting client confidentiality.

Rule 1.4 (Communications)

Rule 1.4 addresses the need for clear communication with clients, and the Opinion stresses that this requirement is independent of the confidentiality concerns under Rule 1.6. Whether or not Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to disclose their AI use depends on the facts of each case. However, the Opinion suggests that lawyers should err on the side of transparency. Informing clients about AI use, preferably during the intake process and in the engagement agreement, can enhance the attorney-client relationship and foster trust.

The takeaway? Even if disclosure isn’t strictly required, being upfront about AI use is a good practice. It can help clients understand the benefits of AI and how it can lead to more efficient and effective legal representation.

Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims & Contentions)

The Opinion briefly touches on Rule 3.1, which prohibits frivolous claims. It warns against relying on AI-generated outputs that include nonexistent citations, inaccurate analysis, or misleading arguments. While the Opinion doesn’t delve deeply into Rule 3.1, it serves as a reminder that AI is only as good as the data it processes. Lawyers must ensure that their claims are grounded in solid legal and factual bases, regardless of whether AI is involved.

The key lesson here is that AI should not replace the lawyer's judgment. Careful review and verification are essential to ensure that claims and contentions meet the standards of merit required by Rule 3.1.

Rule 3.3 (Candor to Tribunal)

Candor to the tribunal is a cornerstone of legal ethics, and the Opinion underscores this in the context of AI use. Rule 3.3 prohibits lawyers from making false statements to a tribunal or failing to correct material errors. The Opinion cites examples of AI-generated outputs that have led to errors in court filings, emphasizing that lawyers must thoroughly review AI-generated materials before submitting them to a court.

While the Opinion highlights the risks of AI in this context, it also implicitly suggests that the standards for candor should remain the same, whether AI is involved or not.

The bottom line? Lawyers must "trust but verify" any AI-generated information before relying on it in court.

Rules 5.1 & 5.3 (Supervision)

The Opinion takes a firm stance on supervision, noting that managerial and supervisory lawyers must establish clear policies for AI use within their firms. This includes training on the ethical use of AI, understanding its capabilities and limitations, and ensuring that all members of the firm comply with their professional obligations.

The extension of previous ABA Formal Opinions to AI use underscores the importance of comprehensive training. Firms must ensure that their lawyers and nonlawyer staff are well-versed in AI technology, secure data handling, and the ethical considerations that come with it.

In essence, the Opinion calls for a proactive approach to supervision. Firms must not only adopt AI but also integrate it responsibly into their practices, ensuring that all team members are adequately trained and aware of the ethical implications.

Rule 8.4(c) (Misconduct: Fraud)

Finally, the Opinion addresses Rule 8.4(c), which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The Opinion emphasizes that even unintentional misstatements generated by AI can constitute misconduct under this Rule. It’s a reminder that the ethical standards for honesty and integrity remain unchanged, regardless of the tools used.

While the Opinion lumps Rule 8.4(c) together with Rules 3.1 and 3.3, the broader implications of AI use extend beyond the courtroom. Lawyers must be vigilant in all aspects of their practice—whether using AI for marketing, intake, or back-office functions—to avoid any hint of dishonesty or misrepresentation.

MISSING: Rule 8.4(g) (Misconduct: Bias)

Surprisingly, Opinion 512 omits any discussion of Rule 8.4(g), which prohibits conduct involving bias or discrimination. This omission is concerning given the well-documented issues with AI bias, which can perpetuate or even exacerbate existing societal prejudices within legal contexts. AI tools, if not carefully monitored, could inadvertently lead to biased outcomes, undermining both client trust and the fairness of the justice system.

Addressing AI bias within the framework of Rule 8.4(g) is crucial for ensuring that the use of AI in legal practice aligns with the profession's ethical standards. The ABA should consider issuing further guidance on how lawyers can identify and mitigate AI bias, ensuring that their practices do not inadvertently result in discrimination. Without such guidance, the risk remains that AI could undermine the very principles of justice that the legal profession is meant to uphold.

While better late than never and a bit conservative, Opinion 512 is a game-changer for the legal profession. The ABA finally urges lawyers to integrate AI into their practices while maintaining the highest ethical standards. From competence and fees to confidentiality, communication, and supervision, the Opinion provides a comprehensive framework for navigating the complex ethical landscape of AI use. However, it also highlights that the core principles of honesty, integrity, and client protection remain paramount, regardless of the technology employed.

As AI continues to evolve, lawyers must stay informed, adapt their practices, and ensure that they use these powerful tools responsibly. The future of legal practice is now, and it's powered by AI—but guided by the timeless principles of legal ethics.

Let's chat about better practice, less stress.