Do Lawyers Have to Follow Ethical Rules When Using AI? Yes — Here's What You Need to Know

Do Lawyers Have to Follow Ethical Rules When Using AI? Yes — Here's What You Need to Know

By Angeli Fitch, AI Compliance & Ethics Attorney | Creator of the State Bar-Approved CLE Course "AI Ethics for Attorneys"

What ethical rules apply to lawyers who use AI?

Lawyers who use AI tools are bound by the same ethical rules that govern everything else they do — and those rules don't have an AI exemption. Your state's Rules of Professional Conduct still apply in full, including your duties of competence, confidentiality, supervision, and candor to the tribunal. The American Bar Association has made this clear, and state bars across the country are following suit with their own guidance.

Using AI doesn't create a carve-out. It creates a new set of ways to violate obligations you already have.

What is AI competence for lawyers, and do I need it?

Yes. Under Model Rule 1.1, lawyers have a duty of competence — and the ABA has said that includes understanding the benefits and risks of relevant technology. AI is now relevant technology.

AI competence for lawyers doesn't mean you need to code or understand how large language models are trained. It means you need to understand enough about the AI tools you use to:

• Know what they can and cannot reliably do

• Recognize when output needs verification

• Avoid using AI in ways that create confidentiality or bias problems

• Supervise nonlawyer staff who use AI on your behalf

Lawyers who skip this education aren't just behind — they're exposed.

What are the biggest ethical risks of using AI in legal practice?

The four areas that generate the most ethical risk for attorneys using AI are:

Confidentiality. Many AI tools are trained on or store the data you input. Uploading client information to a general-purpose AI tool without understanding its data practices may violate your duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6.

Competence. AI tools — including the best ones — hallucinate. They generate citations that don't exist, misstate holdings, and produce confident-sounding analysis that is flat wrong. Submitting AI-generated work product without verification is a competence violation.

Supervision. If your associate, paralegal, or legal assistant is using AI, you are responsible for supervising that use. Rule 5.1 and 5.3 don't stop applying because the work was assisted by a machine.

Candor. Courts are increasingly requiring disclosure of AI use. Submitting AI-generated content without disclosure — or failing to verify it before filing — can put your candor obligations under Rule 3.3 at risk.

Can AI be biased, and does that matter for lawyers?

It does. AI systems are trained on historical data, and that data reflects historical patterns — including patterns of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias. When AI tools are used for tasks like predicting recidivism, screening candidates, or even prioritizing case strategies, those biases can shape outcomes in ways that are invisible to the attorney relying on them.

A lawyer who uses a biased AI tool and doesn't question the output isn't absolved because the machine made the call. Competent, ethical practice means understanding the limitations of your tools — including this one.

Do I need to disclose to clients that I'm using AI?

This is an evolving area, but the trend is toward more disclosure, not less. A growing number of courts require attorneys to disclose AI use in filings. Some bar ethics opinions suggest disclosure may be required when AI plays a meaningful role in work the client is paying for.

At minimum, attorneys should review their engagement agreements and consider whether their current intake and billing practices adequately address AI use. Proactive disclosure — done right — builds trust. Surprise disclosure — done after a problem — does the opposite.

What's the first step for a lawyer who wants to use AI ethically?

Get educated. That's not a platitude — it's the actual professional obligation. Model Rule 1.1 requires it, and several state bars have issued guidance that reinforces it.

The most practical starting point is a structured CLE course that addresses your jurisdiction's specific rules alongside the real-world AI tools attorneys are actually using. Understanding how to build an AI use policy for your firm, how to evaluate an AI vendor's data practices, and how to supervise AI-assisted work puts you ahead of most practitioners — and protects you and your clients.

The bottom line

AI is not going away, and neither are your ethical obligations. The lawyers who will lead this next chapter of the profession are the ones who take the time to understand both — not separately, but together.

If you're ready to get ahead of this, I teach a State Bar-approved CLE course on AI ethics for attorneys. [Contact me here] to bring it to your firm, bar association, or legal organization.

Angeli Fitch is an AI Compliance & Ethics Attorney, trial lawyer with 20+ years of experience, and creator of the California State Bar-approved CLE course "AI Ethics for Attorneys." She advises law firms and legal professionals on ethical AI adoption, compliance, and governance.