Latest Guidance on AI: 3 Things Lawyers Should Know (Lawyers Connect Newsletter)
AI technology continues to evolve, and so does lawyers’ responsibility to keep up with it. The City Bar’s Emerging Companies & Venture Capital Committee and Professional Ethics Committee have issued new guidance to help you navigate and implement legal tools effectively and ethically. Here’s a breakdown of the latest do’s and don’ts:
Avoid Recording with AI (and Get Consent When You Do)
Our Formal Opinion 2025-6 concludes that, before recording a client call, an attorney should get the client’s consent and review AI-generated transcriptions and summaries for accuracy.
But what about non-clients? A more recent opinion by the Professional Ethics Committee advises attorneys not to record at all, absent a good reason to do so. That applies to co-counsel, opposing counsel, investigators, and especially witnesses, whose recorded statements can become discoverable and turn into unfavorable evidence that lacks context.
Challenges also arise when clients or other videoconference participants use their own AI tools. Don’t expect to have control over its security or accuracy in those instances.
AI notetakers are useful, but before you turn one on, ask yourself whether the recording actually serves you strategically, not just whether you’re allowed to.
Some Documents Fare Better with AI Than Others
Consider five factors identified by our Emerging Companies & Venture Capital Committee before letting AI draft or review a document: standardization (how “templatizable” it is), complexity (how contentious the legal concepts are), tailoring (how specific it is to your needs), familiarity (whether your organization has similar past documents to draw from), and level of negotiation (AI better suits first drafts than strategic edits).
NDAs and basic documents may be good opportunities to save time with AI, while more complex ones – including financing, M&A, and shareholder agreements – may require a heavy dose of human review and judgment. Even still, this isn’t a one-size-fits-all assessment: certain provisions within a document can require different levels of human attention.
Time Saved Belongs to the Client, Not Your Bill
If you find yourself saving time on tasks with AI, great! But log that time truthfully. The Emerging Companies & Venture Capital Committee writes that fees must stay consistent with the obligation to charge reasonably for time, labor, skill, and complexity. Lawyers can’t inflate bills based on AI efficiencies. Several jurisdictions have flagged “phantom time” billing as a real ethical issue. Stay transparent, especially when using hourly billing.
———
Lastly, both committees recommend that you always review and verify what AI generates. Last year, a Wyoming federal court sanctioned Morgan & Morgan lawyers for filing briefs with fictitious, AI-generated citations, and this isn’t the only time this sort of oversight has happened. Attorneys are accountable for the work with their name on it, no matter who – or what – writes it.
Use the tech to your advantage. Don’t let the tech use you.
Read:
Policy Paper on the Use of AI Tools by Legal Professionals in Emerging Companies and Venture Capital