The American Bar Association (ABA) has published its first ever formal opinion of the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in legal practice as its influence increases.
Formal Opinion 512, which has been created by the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, states that to ensure that all clients are protected then lawyers and law firms that are using GAI must “fully consider their applicable ethical obligations”.
These include duties to supply competent legal representation, to ensure the protection of client information, establish client communication and to charge reasonable fees that are consistent with using time with GAI.
Lawyers should be mindful of several model rules
The 15-page opinion booklet outlined a host of model rules, for example surrounding competence a rule said that lawyers are obligated to provide competent representation to clients and requires they exercise the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
While lawyers also need to understand the risks and benefits with technologies that are used to deliver legal services to clients.
A further model rule over confidentiality, revealed that lawyers need to be aware of their duties to keep all information as part of their client representation under wraps.
Other model rules have asked lawyers to extend similar protections to former and potential clients’ information looking to the future.
Clients should also receive timely communication from their lawyers if it is important to their situation.
As for fees to be paid for legal services another model rule stated that expenses must be at a reasonable rate, where there needs to be a set of criteria in place to ensure that prices must not spiral out of control.
The formal opinion notes that if for example a lawyer uses GAI to draft a pleading then he or she can charge the client for the time spent on this, and for any time necessary to review the resulting draft for accuracy and completeness.
Yet a lawyer cannot charge a client for any time taken by learning how to use a GAI tool in the processing of the case.
“With the ever-evolving use of technology by lawyers and courts, lawyers must be vigilant in complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure that lawyers are adhering to their ethical responsibilities and that clients are protected.”
Formal Opinion 512 concluded.
GAI advancements in law
There have been a number of steps forward that GAI has made in legal practice in recent times.
They include user-friendly interfaces that has made them more favoured by legal professionals, it’s a development that is allowing more influence from GAI in their working patterns.
Also there has been several new releases on base AI models, where they have shown huge improvements in their performances, making them more appealing for lawyers as they become better equipped to deal with legal tasks.
Communication and transparency are areas that the ABA highlighted as part of its opinion views of GAI, and there has been a notable increase of interaction and clarity from AI vendors in how information is used.
KPMG predicts the future for law and GAI
KPMG have made of series of forecasts over what the future holds for GAI and how influential it is set to become in law.
The application of GAI to legal work will significantly increase efficiency and productivity.
These are gains which are also set to grow, as legal professionals become even more comfortable with GAI solutions and develop more ways to use them.
Although legal teams are advised to stay vigilant as the dependence on GAI escalates, as there are risks involved such as data breaches that could effect client privilege.
KPMG also believe that as GAI continues to advance and collect huge volumes of data, it will become increasingly difficult to trace and verify the sources used to train these technologies.
As a result there have been disputes over the GAI’s use of copyrighted information, proof of who “owns” a source of original data could frustrate any efforts to gain intellectual property protection for AI generated results.
In response privacy teams will need to expand their focus to streamline processes, and adapt to AI related risks and regulations by rapidly forming internal policies.
Cyber security threats are likely to increase, as KPMG predict that as cyber criminals become more able to use GAI for disruption purposes and spreading misinformation.
Legal teams will be called upon to combat security attacks, by advising companies on consistent policies to be able to defend against any attacks.
Cyber security will need to be in place at an appropriate level to protect the data of an organisation, and legal firm employees will need the skills to recognise and understand the sources of cyber risks.
