ABA Compliance: What You Need to Know About AI Tools

Target Audience: Ethics Committees and Risk Partners

Understanding ABA Opinion 512: A Roadmap for Safe AI Adoption

For a long time, lawyers operated in a grey area regarding AI ethics. That changed with ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued on July 29, 2024.

This opinion is not a warning label; it is a roadmap. It confirms that lawyers can (and perhaps eventually must) use AI tools, provided they adhere to ethical standards.

Here is what you need to know to ensure your firm is compliant.

1. The Duty of Competence (Rule 1.1)

You don't need to be a computer scientist, but you cannot be clueless. Opinion 512 states that lawyers must understand the "capabilities and limitations" of the AI tools they use.

Action Item: Ask your vendor how their tool works. Does it use RAG? Does it hallucinate? If you use a tool blindly without understanding its risks, you are violating Rule 1.1.

The duty to stay informed is ongoing—as GAI tools evolve rapidly, lawyers must periodically update their understanding of the technology's benefits and risks.

2. The Duty of Confidentiality (Rule 1.6)

This is the big one. You must ensure that your client's confidential data is not being used to train public AI models.

The Risk: If you paste a client contract into the free version of ChatGPT, that data may become part of the public training set.

The Fix: Use enterprise-grade tools like ChronoLaw, which are built with "Zero-Retention" policies. We process your data to answer your questions, but we do not train our models on your client's secrets.

3. The Duty to Supervise (Rules 5.1 and 5.3)

Opinion 512 treats AI like a non-lawyer assistant (a junior associate or paralegal). You are responsible for its work. You cannot file a brief written by AI without reviewing it.

The Solution: This is why Verifiable AI is critical. Tools that generate answers without citations are nearly impossible to supervise efficiently. Tools that provide hyperlinks to source evidence make supervision easy and effective.

Lawyers in managerial roles must establish clear policies regarding the permissible use of GAI and ensure adequate training for both lawyers and non-lawyers in their firm.

4. Client Communication (Rule 1.4)

Do you have to tell your client you are using AI?

Opinion 512 suggests that if the AI usage is "material" to the representation, you should disclose it. Clients must be informed in advance and give informed consent if you propose to input information relating to their representation into a GAI tool.

The Perspective: Frame it as a benefit. "We use advanced AI tools to process discovery faster, which saves you money on billable hours." Clients will appreciate the efficiency.

5. Meritorious Claims and Candor to the Tribunal (Rules 3.1, 3.3, and 8.4(c))

Given GAI's potential to produce inaccurate information—the well-known "hallucination" problem—lawyers must independently verify all GAI outputs before using them in judicial proceedings.

The Standard: Before submitting any AI-generated content to a court, you must carefully review it to ensure that:

• All legal citations are accurate and real

• Analysis of legal authority is correct

• Factual assertions are not misleading

• Arguments are not based on false information

Even an unintentional misstatement to a court can constitute a misrepresentation under Rule 8.4(c).

6. Reasonable Fees (Rule 1.5)

The efficiency gains from AI raise important billing questions. Opinion 512 clarifies several key points:

• Lawyers may not charge clients for time spent learning AI tools that they will regularly use across multiple client matters—this is considered general professional development.

• However, if a client specifically requests the use of a particular AI tool unfamiliar to the lawyer, the time spent learning that specific tool may be billable.

• The cost of GAI tools may be treated as office overhead, or firms may charge for a portion of expensive proprietary tools on a per-use basis, provided this is fully explained to the client in advance.

• Because AI can significantly reduce the time required for certain tasks, fees must remain reasonable—you cannot charge traditional rates if the tool dramatically reduces your workload.

The Principle: Bill for the actual time and value delivered, not what the work would have taken using traditional methods.

Conclusion

Compliance isn't about avoiding technology; it's about choosing the right technology. By selecting tools that prioritize transparency, security, and verification, you satisfy your ethical obligations while giving your firm a competitive edge.

The ABA has made clear: AI is here to stay in legal practice. The question is not whether to use it, but how to use it ethically and effectively.

---

Need help ensuring your AI tools meet ABA compliance standards? Contact us to learn how ChronoLaw's Verifiable AI architecture addresses every requirement in Formal Opinion 512.