Current Ethics Opinions and Reports Related to Generative Artificial Intelligence
Click “Download PDF” to access the full report
REPORT
CURRENT ETHICS OPINIONS AND REPORTS RELATED TO GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Jurisdictions across the country have been working to address the unique issues and challenges to the legal profession posed by Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI). In these summaries, the New York City Bar Association Presidential Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies (Task Force)[1] highlights key requirements from American Bar Association (ABA) ethics opinions, formal ethics opinions from California, Washington, D.C., Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, New York (i.e., the New York City Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association), Pennsylvania (e.g., the Philadelphia Bar Association), Minnesota, Missouri, West Virginia, and the Massachusetts Attorney General and the New York Attorney General. These summaries of ethics opinions, bar association reports, and other resources discuss how the legal profession is currently using AI and may be relevant to practitioners seeking to learn more about GAI and legal ethics.[2]
While it is possible to draw conclusions from some of the specific summaries, overall, the summaries reflect the following general trends:
Lawyers’ use of generative artificial intelligence in connection with the practice of law triggers numerous ethical duties that may arise depending on the nature of the use. The ethical duties include: (i) maintaining client confidence, (ii) understanding and knowing how to use generative artificial intelligence, (iii) verifying the output created by generative artificial intelligence, (iv) supervising lawyers and nonlawyers using generative artificial intelligence, (v) being candid to the court and client when using generative artificial intelligence, and (vi) not charging a client for the time saved by the use of artificial intelligence, among other things.
An exception to the similar reading of how the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the use of generative artificial intelligence is the conclusion in the West Virginia opinion that an attorney should receive client permission to use generative artificial intelligence before using it. The other reports conclude that client disclosure is not needed provided the attorney is otherwise complying with the attorney’s ethical responsibilities when using generative artificial intelligence.
Further, there has not been a call to amend the Rules of Professional Conduct or the comments to the Rules specifically to address generative artificial intelligence; rather, the current Rules are generally considered to be sufficiently robust to address the use of generative artificial intelligence. None of the below sources suggests that an attorney either may not or must use generative artificial intelligence to fulfill the attorney’s duty of competence, but several note that a time in the future may come when an attorney must understand and use generative artificial intelligence to fulfill the attorney’s duty of competence.
Click “Download PDF” to access the full report
Footnotes
[1] The Task Force is composed of approximately 250 representatives of more than 50 committees, councils, and other task forces of the City Bar and adjunct members, including lawyers, academics, trade association representatives, consultants, technologists, and others. See Task Force Dashboard at https://www.nycbar.org/committees/task-force-on-digital-technologies/ and https://www.nycbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/PTFAIDT-Leadership-250430.pdf (All websites last accessed on May 28, 2025).
[2] The summaries were drafted by the Task Force Subcommittee on Artificial Intelligence and Legal Ethics (AI and Legal Ethics Subcommittee) and approved by the Task Force Subcommittee on Articles and Blogs. The AI and Legal Ethics Subcommittee’s primary mission includes analyzing and reporting on the Rules of Professional Conduct; bar association ethics opinions; case law; and the laws and regulations governing the unauthorized practice of law. The current members of the AI and Legal Ethics Subcommittee include (1) Matthew K. Corbin, Managing Director at Aon; (2) Margaret Darin Hagan, Executive Director of the Legal Design Lab and Lecturer at Stanford Law School and the Stanford Institute of Design; (3) Subcommittee Co-Chair David Keyko, Partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and City Bar Professional Ethics Committee Chair; (4) Subcommittee Co-Chair Tyler Maulsby, Immediate Past President of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers and Partner at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC; (5) Lucian T. Pera, Partner at Adams & Reese LLP; (6) Alison Roffi, Deputy General Counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; (7) Roy D. Simon, former Professor and Director at Hofstra Institute for the Study of Legal Ethics, Hofstra University School of Law; and (8) Kaylin L. Whittingham, Managing Attorney at Whittingham Law. The Task Force Subcommittee on Articles and Blogs serves as a peer review for Task Force writings, especially articles, blogs, reports, statements, and other writings. Current subcommittee members include (1) Angelena Bradfield, Head of Policy and Government Affairs at Financial Technology Association; (2) Robert Mahari, Harvard Law School and MIT Media Lab; (3) Lorraine McGowen, Task Force Co-Chair and Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; (4) Robert Schwinger, Partner at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP; (5) Edwin Smith, Massachusetts Uniform Law Commissioner and Partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; (6) Tiffany Smith, Partner at WilmerHale; and (7) Jerome Walker, Task Force Co-Chair and Partner at Jerome Walker PLLC.