By Bill Hartzer · Published · How this site is researched
What happened
Generative AI (a system that produces new text in response to a prompt) raises questions under existing professional conduct standards: whether output must be checked, whether client information may be entered, and how the time may be billed. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility addressed those questions in Formal Opinion 512, titled "Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools," issued July 29, 2024.
The opinion states that it is based on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct as amended through August 2023. It discusses Model Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.6 (confidentiality), 3.1 (meritorious claims), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 8.4(c) (misconduct) and 5.1 and 5.3 (supervision).
What was issued or decided
The committee addressed verification, confidentiality, court rules and fees. On verification, the opinion refers to the risk of "a lawyer's reliance on, or submission of, a GAI tool's output—without an appropriate degree of independent verification or review." On confidentiality, it states that for self-learning tools "a client's informed consent is required prior to inputting information relating to the representation into such a GAI tool," and that "merely adding general, boiler-plate provisions to engagement letters purporting to authorize the lawyer to use GAI is not sufficient."
On court requirements, the opinion states: "Lawyers should consult with the applicable court's local rules to ensure that they comply with those rules with respect to AI use." On fees, the ABA's announcement states that "in most circumstances, the lawyer cannot charge a client for learning how to work a GAI tool." The full text is published on the ABA's website.
Where it stands
Formal Opinion 512 remains the ABA's principal ethics opinion on generative AI as of September 11, 2026. ABA opinions interpret the Model Rules. The provisions that bind a lawyer are those adopted in the lawyer's own jurisdiction. The opinion addresses lawyers. It does not speak to expert witnesses, who are not bound by the Model Rules, though the lawyers who retain and supervise them are.
How it maps to the Standard
The opinion's verification passage corresponds to Clause 3 of the Standard, independent authority, and Clause 4, checkability before adoption. Nothing a tool produces is relied on until it has been checked against a source that does not depend on the tool.
Its informed-consent passage corresponds to Clause 6, custody and confidentiality. An expert who receives material under a protective order or from a client's counsel is in a comparable position: the material may be entered into a system only if the expert is free to submit it there. Its reference to local rules corresponds to Clause 8, disclosure where rules or orders require it.
Sources
- American Bar Association · July 29, 2024
Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools - American Bar Association · July 29, 2024
ABA issues first ethics guidance on a lawyer's use of AI tools
About this entry
This entry was checked against the primary document listed in the sources. The entry for ABA Formal Opinion 512 records conduct and what the tribunal did. It does not characterize a holding and it is not legal advice. Last checked September 11, 2026. More matters like this one are collected under court rules and ethics guidance on AI. If something here is out of date, write to [email protected].