In a previous blog post, we shared an annotated bibliography highlighting best practices for prompting generative AI during legal research. Effective prompting, however, is only one aspect attorneys must consider when using generative AI in their work. As generative AI tools become increasingly common in legal practice, lawyers must ensure that their use of these technologies complies with their ethical obligations under the applicable state bar rules.

On July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association released Formal Opinion 512, which provides guidance on lawyers’ ethical responsibilities when using generative AI. The UNC Law Library previously discussed that opinion in a separate blog post. Similarly, on November 1, 2024, the North Carolina State Bar issued 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, addressing many of the same issues for attorneys practicing in North Carolina. Together, these authorities emphasize that lawyers remain responsible for their work product, regardless of whether generative AI assisted in its creation.

As guidance continues to evolve, staying current can feel challenging. The resources below provide scholarly and practical perspectives on how attorneys can meet their professional responsibilities while taking advantage of the benefits offered by generative AI. Collectively, they explore issues such as competence, confidentiality, client communication, supervision, candor toward tribunals, and reasonable fees.

1. Carol M. Bast, Artificial Intelligence and Ethics, 50 Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 283 (2024). Bast provides an overview of how attorneys’ ethical obligations intersect with AI. The article examines duties of competence, technological competence, client communication, confidentiality, candor toward tribunals, supervision, and reasonable fees. It also compares approaches taken in different jurisdictions and proposes methods for improving lawyers’ technological competence.
2. John G. Browning, From Coding to Code of Conduct: Understanding the Ethical Dimensions of Lawyers’ Use of Generative AI, The Advocate (Texas), Winter 2024, at 8. Browning analyzes ABA Formal Opinion 512 and explains its implications for practicing attorneys. The article focuses on trial lawyers’ duties of competence, confidentiality, communication, candor to the tribunal, supervision, and billing practices when using generative AI tools.
3. Jennifer J. Cook & Denista R. Mavrova Heinrich, AI-Ready Attorneys: Ethical Obligations and Privacy Considerations in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, 72 U. Kan. L. Rev. 313 (March 2024). This article examines how generative AI affects attorneys’ duties of competence, communication, and confidentiality. The authors devote particular attention to privacy considerations and offer best practices for safeguarding client information when using AI tools.
4. Jaime Herren, Best Use or No Use? What Should Lawyers Do about AI Right Now?, Probate and Property, Jan./Feb. 2025, at 38. Herren encourages attorneys to develop familiarity with generative AI rather than avoid it altogether. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding both the benefits and limitations of these tools while remaining mindful of professional obligations related to confidentiality, client disclosure, supervision, and attorney fees.
5. Kathryn C. Nadro, Generative AI: Legal Ethics and Best Practices, American Bankruptcy Institute Journal, Dec. 2024, at 20. Nadro provides an overview of Formal Opinion 512 and explains how ethical duties, including competence, confidentiality, supervision, client communication, reasonable fees, and candor toward the tribunal, are affected when lawyers use generative AI. It also presents best practices for complying with professional responsibilities when using generative AI.
6. Andrew M. Perlman, The Legal Ethics of Generative AI, 57 Suffolk University Law Review 345 (2024). Perlman examines how professional responsibility rules apply to generative AI and explores issues such as confidentiality, client disclosure, supervision, and billing. Notably, he argues that the duty of competence may increasingly require lawyers to understand and use AI technologies effectively
7. Benjamin R. Syroka, You Just Can’t Beat the Machine: A Lawyer’s Duty to Adapt in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, 56 University of Toledo Law Review 315 (Spring 2025). Syroka contends that lawyers must learn to use AI technologies to satisfy their ethical obligations in a changing legal landscape. The article discusses ABA Formal Opinion 512, technological competence, client fees, client communication, confidentiality, supervision, and candor to the court, ultimately arguing that adaptation is becoming a professional necessity.

Generative AI is reshaping legal practice, but it does not diminish lawyers’ professional responsibilities. Whether attorneys use AI for research, drafting, analysis, or administrative tasks, they remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their work, protecting client information, communicating appropriately with clients, and complying with applicable ethical rules. The resources above provide a starting point for understanding how traditional duties of competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, and reasonable billing apply in an era of rapidly evolving technology. As courts, bar associations, and professional organizations continue to issue guidance, staying informed about both the capabilities and risks of generative AI will remain an essential part of competent legal practice.