Your associates are already using ChatGPT. The question is whether they're violating Rule 1.6 every time they do. I help law firms choose AI tools that are actually compliant with your ethics obligations.
AI is transforming legal work — but most firms are adopting tools without checking whether they create ethics violations.
"If I put client information into an AI tool, did I just violate Rule 1.6?" — Most consumer AI tools train on your data. That means client confidences are being used to improve a commercial product. That's a disclosure you didn't authorize.
"What if the AI hallucinates a case citation?" — After Mata v. Avianca, courts have zero tolerance. Attorneys were sanctioned $5,000 for submitting AI-fabricated citations. You cannot blame the AI.
"My associate is using AI for everything. Am I supervising that properly?" — Rules 5.1/5.3 create supervisory liability. Without a written AI policy, you have no defense.
"My state bar hasn't issued guidance yet — so it's probably fine, right?" — ABA Formal Opinion 512 already makes it clear: existing rules cover AI use. Waiting is not a defense.
ABA Model Rules and Formal Opinion 512 create clear obligations for law firms using AI. Here's what you need to know.
Comment 8 requires lawyers to "keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." Courts are increasingly treating AI competence as part of this obligation.
Prohibits disclosure of client information without consent. Using cloud-based AI tools that train on user data or lack data protection agreements likely violates this rule. The practical test: "Would my client be okay knowing this information went to this vendor?"
Lawyers are responsible for the accuracy of all AI-generated citations and arguments. The Mata v. Avianca case set the precedent — AI-fabricated filings result in sanctions. Period.
Partners must supervise both attorney and non-attorney use of AI. This requires a written AI usage policy, designated oversight responsibility, and review processes for AI-generated work product.
Directly addresses generative AI. Reaffirms that existing ethics rules apply. Recommends firms review AI vendors' data use policies, use tools with no-training clauses, and implement written AI policies.
Using AI that dramatically reduces time should be reflected in billing. Charging full hourly rates for work that took seconds via AI may be considered excessive — creating yet another compliance layer to manage.
Attorney sanctioned $5,000 for submitting AI-fabricated case citations. Set precedent that lawyers cannot blame AI for false filings.
Reprimands issued for unauthorized disclosure of client data via commercial AI tools without proper data protection agreements.
Federal and state courts increasingly requiring AI disclosure in filings — non-compliance creates additional exposure.
I don't sell AI tools. I help you choose the ones that actually comply with your ethics obligations — and avoid the ones that don't.
I evaluate every AI tool your firm uses or is considering — consumer tools, legal-specific platforms, productivity software — against ABA Model Rules and your state bar's guidance.
A firm-specific AI usage policy that satisfies Rules 5.1/5.3 supervisory requirements. Covers approved tools, prohibited uses, review procedures, and staff training protocols.
Not all AI is created equal. I help you choose between cloud platforms with proper data protection (Harvey Enterprise, Casetext), on-premise options (Ollama + open-source models), and hybrid architectures.
Your attorneys and staff learn exactly which tools they can use, how to use them safely, and what to never put into an AI prompt. Practical, not theoretical.
30 minutes. We'll review your current AI tools and identify compliance gaps specific to your practice.
Book a Strategy Call25 questions to assess whether your AI tools create ethics violations — and what to do if they do. Score your compliance in under 10 minutes.