What the opinion covers
- Competence (Rule 1.1)lawyers need a reasonable understanding of a tool, must review its output, and remain fully responsible for the work; how much review depends on the tool and the task
- Confidentiality (Rule 1.6)assess the risk before entering client information; self-learning tools generally require informed client consent
- Communication (Rule 1.4)whether to disclose AI use to clients depends on the facts
- Candor (Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.4(c))review output before anything reaches a tribunal
- Supervision (Rules 5.1, 5.3)adopt firm policies, train staff, and oversee outside vendors
- Fees (Rule 1.5)bill only for time actually spent
What it means for your website
Apply the same review discipline to marketing drafts that the opinion requires for legal work, and keep client names and confidential case details out of prompts used to write results pages. If an outside agency uses AI on your pages, Rule 5.3 supervision is the relevant duty. The advertising standard itself comes from Rule 7.1 and your state's version of it; see how advertising rules apply to AI content.
Footnote 4 also cites Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 on AI chatbots under Florida Rule 4-7.13, which the Florida guide discusses. Several states have issued their own opinions; our list of state AI opinions gives titles and dates. The opinion says the ABA will likely offer updated guidance as the tools change.
How we handle it
No confidential client information goes into our drafting, and every page is approved by the attorney before it is published. More in whether lawyers can use AI to write website content.
Go deeper
The AI search guide for law firms links the state guides that apply these rules locally.