Skip to content
Legal technology, summarized

Story type

Ethics opinion

Bar and professional-conduct opinions on lawyers’ use of technology and AI, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

5 stories

Ethics opinion7 articles

Florida Bar treats AI tools as nonlawyer assistants for supervision purposes

The Florida Bar issued an opinion on supervising generative AI, treating an AI tool as a nonlawyer assistant for the purposes of the supervision rule. Lawyers must verify AI output before filing or advising, and a firm must have written policies covering permitted tools and confidentiality. The opinion does not require client consent for internal use but requires it before client data enters a third-party tool.

Read the long piece on LexRegister
Ethics opinion9 articles

State Bar of California updates generative AI guidance with billing and disclosure sections

The State Bar of California updated its practical guidance on generative AI, adding sections on billing, supervision of contract lawyers using AI, and disclosure to courts. The update states that a lawyer may not charge for time not spent, and that efficiency gains belong to the client where fees are hourly. The guidance remains advisory rather than a rule.

Ethics opinion6 articles

New York opinion treats AI input as disclosure unless the provider is contractually barred from training

A New York State Bar Association committee addressed whether entering client information into a generative AI service is a disclosure under the confidentiality rule. The opinion says it is, unless the provider is contractually barred from training on the input and from human review. Standard consumer terms do not meet that bar. Firms are advised to obtain enterprise agreements before use.

Ethics opinion1 article

Ohio opinion draws the unauthorized practice line at applying law to a user's facts

An Ohio advisory opinion considered whether a consumer-facing legal AI product constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. The opinion finds that supplying general legal information is not, but that applying law to a user's specific facts and recommending a course of action is, regardless of disclaimers. It notes that enforcement remains a matter for the state supreme court.

Sources
Ethics opinion4 articles

Illinois opinion permits passing through AI subscription cost but forbids marking it up

An Illinois State Bar Association advisory opinion concluded that a lawyer may pass through the cost of a generative AI subscription as an expense only where the client agreed in advance and the charge reflects actual cost. Marking up the subscription is prohibited. The opinion draws on the existing rule governing charges for photocopying and research databases.

Latest rulings

All court orders