By Jim Calloway

Some lawyers are using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in their practices today. Almost every lawyer has heard the stories of lawyers being sanctioned or disciplined when the AI tool they used to prepare a brief included fictitious citations and quotes from non-existent opinions. I must note that the most serious consequences were meted out to lawyers who also misrepresented themselves to the court about how the brief was created. And to state the obvious, they filed pleadings without personally reviewing the cases cited and quoted.

I encourage readers read these two recently released legal ethics opinions focusing on generative AI. Even if you don’t use generative AI, other lawyers will and you want to be prepared if a future client brings you evidentiary materials that make you question whether AI was involved in their creation.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (July 29, 2024) begins by noting lawyers have been using some tools for years that could be termed AI, e.g. digital contract analysis or technology-assisted review as a part of electronic discovery.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility released Formal Opinion 2024-200 jointly with the Philadelphia Bar Association. (June 24, 2024) This committee enjoys a great reputation for publishing excellent ethics opinions concerning lawyers’ use of technology. This opinion concludes with a dozen observations about the ethical use of AI.

Of course, both the ABA opinion and the Pennsylvania opinion are advisory only and not binding on practicing lawyers. But they are both well-reasoned and well-written with many citations of authority.