In July 2024 the American Bar Association published Formal Opinion 512, its first formal guidance on generative AI. It doesn't create new rules. It explains how the Model Rules you already follow apply when a lawyer uses tools that draft, summarize or research. Here is what it asks, in plain English, and how a small firm can act on it. This is general information, not ethics advice; check your own state's rules and opinions too.
Competence (Rule 1.1)
You don't need to be a technologist, but you do need a "reasonable understanding" of the capabilities and limits of any AI tool you use. In practice that means knowing:
- that tools can produce confident, wrong answers (often called hallucinations),
- what data the tool can see, and where it goes,
- and how to check what it produces.
Practical step: pick tools whose answers cite their sources, so verifying a date or a quote takes seconds instead of a re-read of the file.
Confidentiality (Rule 1.6)
This is the heart of the opinion. Before you put client information into a tool, you have to assess the risk that it will be disclosed or accessed by others, inside or outside the firm. For "self-learning" tools that may use inputs to train or improve the model, the opinion says you generally need the client's informed consent, and boilerplate buried in an engagement letter is not enough.
Practical step: prefer tools that connect to your document system with per-person access, and get the provider's training and retention terms in writing.
Communication (Rule 1.4)
Sometimes you must tell the client you're using AI: when they ask, when it affects the representation's basis or fees, or when the engagement terms require it. Many firms simply disclose it up front, in plain language.
Candor and Meritorious Claims (Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.4(c))
Everything filed or sent under your name must be accurate. AI-drafted briefs with invented citations are the cautionary tale everyone has heard. Every citation, quote and date needs checking against the source.
Supervision (Rules 5.1 and 5.3)
Partners and supervising lawyers need clear policies for how lawyers and staff use AI, plus training, and they must make reasonable efforts to ensure that outside AI providers handle client information in line with the lawyer's own duties.
Fees (Rule 1.5)
You can bill the actual time you spend, including reviewing AI output, but not the hours you would have spent without the tool. You generally can't charge clients for learning a general-purpose tool. If you bill AI as a cost, it must be reasonable and disclosed.
A One-Afternoon Plan for a Small Firm
- Write a one-page policy: which tools are approved, what never goes into them, and who reviews outputs. Start from our Firm AI-Use Policy Template.
- Vet one tool properly using the questions in our AI Vendor Due-Diligence Checklist.
- Update your engagement letter with a plain-language AI disclosure, and get specific informed consent where the opinion calls for it.
- Make review visible: use workflows where nothing leaves the firm without a person's approval.
- Revisit billing for matters where AI changes how long work takes.
Where MetaWurks Fits
MetaWurks reads a whole matter folder rather than a pasted excerpt, cites every line of a summary back to its page, and never sends anything without your approval. Your professional duties stay yours; the workspace gives you controls that make them easier to meet. See how a matter summary agent works.