AI for law firms ethics checklist
ABA Formal Opinion 512 in a list a firm can run. I am not a lawyer. The license stays with the attorneys. The system gathers facts and drafts.
Direct answer
What ABA Formal Opinion 512 requires in practice
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024) tells lawyers that generative AI does not change the Model Rules. Competence, confidentiality, communication, candor, supervision, and fees still apply. In practice: understand the tool, do not put confidential client information into a system you have not vetted, review every legal output, supervise staff and the tool, and do not bill for time the tool saved as if a lawyer spent it.
Written by Zack Shields. Last updated .
Key facts
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 addresses generative AI under existing Model Rules
- Core duties: competence (1.1), confidentiality (1.6), communication (1.4), candor, supervision (5.1 and 5.3), fees (1.5)
- Client-identifying facts stay out of consumer chat tools
- A lawyer reviews every legal output before it leaves the firm
- I am not a lawyer. I build the workflow. The firm owns ethics judgments
How to use this checklist
This is an operator checklist framed by ABA Formal Opinion 512. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for your ethics counsel or your jurisdiction's rules. Opinion 512 is a formal ethics opinion of the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility.
I am Zack Shields. I am not a lawyer. I build intake, routing, and drafting systems that keep a lawyer in the loop. Use the list before a tool goes live.
Ethics checklist (Opinion 512 framing)
- CompetenceSomeone at the firm can explain what the tool does, where it fails, and that it can invent citations. Opinion 512 treats this as Model Rule 1.1. "The intern set it up" is not competence.
- ConfidentialityBefore any client fact is typed into a tool, the firm has read the vendor terms: training use, retention, subprocessors, and location. If the tool is not safe for that class of data, the fact does not go in. Informed consent is a lawyer decision when Opinion 512 says it is needed.
- CommunicationThe firm has a rule for when clients are told that GAI was used. Opinion 512 points at Model Rule 1.4. At minimum, the firm can answer if a client asks.
- Candor and meritorious workNo filing, letter, or memo leaves on model output alone. Hallucinated cases are the firm's problem, not the vendor's. A lawyer checks every citation and legal proposition.
- SupervisionPartners supervise lawyers. Lawyers supervise staff. Someone supervises the tool: who may use it, on which matters, with which review step. Opinion 512 maps this to Rules 5.1 and 5.3. A vendor is not the supervisor.
- Fees, in general termsOpinion 512 applies Rule 1.5. Do not bill clients for time the tool saved as if a lawyer spent those hours. If a GAI expense is billed, it is reasonable, agreed, and not a hidden markup. I do not set a firm's rates.
Workflow review
Intake can be software. Advice cannot.
I build intake, conflict routing, and document drafts that keep a lawyer in charge. Book a consult and walk one matter path.
Safe workflow steps
- Approve the tool firstBusiness agreement, training-use off or understood, a place for logs. Personal ChatGPT on a phone is out of policy.
- Split intake from adviceSoftware may gather facts, check conflicts, and book a consult. It does not advise. The intake path says so.
- Conflict check before substanceParty names against the practice system before a long conversation. A person decides the conflict.
- Redact or refuseIf the tool is not cleared for the data class, the workflow stops or strips identifiers.
- Human review gateEngagement letters, filings, and advice-shaped drafts sit in a lawyer queue. No silent send.
- Keep an audit trailWhat was sent to a model, who approved the output, and which matter it belonged to.
If you want intake, conflict routing, and drafts built around these constraints, that work is AI automation for law firms.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Short, direct answers. Ask me anything else on the call.
What is ABA Formal Opinion 512?
A July 29, 2024 formal ethics opinion on generative AI. It applies existing Model Rules (competence, confidentiality, communication, candor, supervision, fees) to GAI tools. It does not create a new license, and it does not bless any vendor.Can a law firm use ChatGPT on client matters?
Only if confidentiality has been evaluated and the use fits the firm's policy. Opinion 512 is strict on 1.6. Consumer tools that train on inputs or lack a usable agreement are the usual fail. I do not put client-identifying facts into consumer chat.Does the opinion require disclosing AI use to every client?
Not as a blanket slogan. Opinion 512 ties disclosure to the communication rule and the facts of the representation. Fees and client questions are common triggers. Your ethics counsel owns the firm-wide rule.Do you give ethics opinions?
No. I am not a lawyer. I build systems that keep a lawyer in charge and keep matter data out of consumer tools. The firm's license stays on the line.
Book a consult
Book a consult
Tell me where consults leak or where drafting eats attorney hours. I reply within one business day.
- Quote
- Written
- Length
- 30 min
- Pressure
- None