The post Lawyer Assistance Programs Around the Country appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The opinions, etc. focus on the use of generative AI to review and draft documents. Common themes across these jurisdictions include the duty of competence (understanding the technology), confidentiality (not entering client secrets into public AI models), and supervision/verification (lawyers must verify all AI outputs for accuracy).

To keep up with the latest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) use and trends in law firms, see our CLE webinars. CLE credit is available in numerous jurisdictions.

_{Originally Published: January 2, 2026             Last updated: July 25, 2026}

Here is the list of state bar associations that have issued specific guidance:

Alaska

• Issuing Body: Alaska Bar Association

• Document: Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (April 2025)

• Summary: Affirms that it is ethically permissible for lawyers to use generative AI to assist clients, provided the lawyer understands to a reasonable degree how the technology works, verifies the outputs to prevent hallucinations, and maintains client confidentiality.

• Link: Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1

California

• Issuing Body: The State Bar of California

• Document: Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law

• Summary: Initially issued in late 2023, this comprehensive guide addresses duties of confidentiality, competence, and candor. It specifically warns against inputting confidential client information into non-secure AI tools and requires lawyers to review all AI-generated work product. The Bar suggests that, "this Practical Guidance should be read as guiding principles rather than as 'best practices.'" It was unpdated in May 2026 to specifically address "agentic AI" (AI models capable of planning steps and executing tasks autonomously). The update emphasizes that even with autonomous AI, lawyers cannot delegate legal judgment and must manually review any AI-generated filings or decisions.

• Link: California State Bar Practical Guidance (May 2026); California State Bar Practical Guidance (2023 superceded)

District of Columbia

• Issuing Body: D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee

• Document: Ethics Opinion 388: Ethics Issues in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

• Summary: Released in April 2024, this opinion emphasizes that lawyers must have a "reasonable understanding" of the technology's capabilities and limitations (specifically hallucinations) and must protect client confidences when using generative AI tools. The opinion make sthe important distinction that, "Lawyers should understand that GAI [generative AI] products are not search engines that accurately report hits on existing data in a constantly updated database. The information available to a GAI product is confined to the dataset on which the GAI has been trained."

• Link: D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388

Florida

• Issuing Body: The Florida Bar Board of Governors

• Document: Advisory Opinion 24-1

• Summary: Approved in January 2024, this opinion permits the use of generative AI but mandates that lawyers verify the accuracy of the work product, ensure confidentiality (recommending client consent for third-party AI use involving confidential data), and avoid improper billing practices (e.g., double-billing). The opinion also addresses the use of AI chatbots on attorney websites, advising that, "generative AI chatbots that communicate with clients or third parties must comply with restrictions on lawyer advertising..."

• Link: Florida Bar Advisory Opinion 24-1

Illinois

• Issuing Body: Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) of the Supreme Court of Illinois

• Document: The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI

• Summary: Released in late 2025, this guide serves as a practical resource for implementing AI in alignment with ethical duties, including flowcharts and checklists for vetting AI tools.

• Link: ARDC Illinois Attorney's Guide 

Kentucky

• Issuing Body: Kentucky Bar Association

• Document: Ethics Opinion KBA E-457

• Summary: Issued in March 2024, this opinion provides a FAQ-style guide on competence, confidentiality, and billing. It reinforces the lawyer's duty to review the AI output for accuracy and clarifies that lawyers cannot bill for the time spent learning how to use AI, only for the actual benefit provided to the client.

• Link: Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinions

Michigan

• Issuing Body: State Bar of Michigan Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics

• Document: Ethics Opinion JI-155

• Summary: While primarily focused on judicial officers, this opinion (October 2023) establishes that judges and lawyers must maintain competence with advancing technology, including AI, to ensure fair and accurate legal proceedings.

• Link: State Bar of Michigan Opinion JI-155

Mississippi

• Issuing Body: Mississippi Bar

• Document: Ethics Opinion 267 (November 2024)

• Summary: Outlines how attorneys can use AI tools ethically, placing a specific focus on navigating confidentiality risks, managing honest billing practices (billing for actual time spent rather than time saved), and client disclosure.

• Link: Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion No. 267

New Jersey

• Issuing Body: New Jersey Courts / Supreme Court of New Jersey

• Document: Notice to the Bar: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers

• Summary: Released in January 2024, this notice clarifies that the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to AI. It specifically highlights the duty to verify citations (citing the Mata v. Avianca case) and the prohibition against generating false evidence.

• Link: NJ Courts Preliminary Guidelines (PDF)

New Mexico

• Issuing Body: State Bar of New Mexico

• Document: Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-004 (September 2024)

• Summary: Addresses the ethical duties mapped to AI use, focusing on competence, safeguarding data against third-party self-learning models, and the prohibition against submitting unverified AI output to tribunals.

• Link: State Bar of New Mexico Formal Opinion 2024-004

New York

• Issuing Body: New York State Bar Association (NYSBA)

• Document: Report and Recommendations of the NYSBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence

• Summary: An extensive report (April 2024) detailing the impact of AI on the legal profession, offering regulatory guidelines, and suggesting that while no new ethics rules are immediately needed, existing rules (competence, supervision) must be strictly applied.

• Link: Formerly at NYSBA Task Force Report; not currently available online

• Issuing Body: New York City Bar Association (NYCBA)

• Document 1: Formal Opinion 2024-5 (August 2024)

  • Summary: General guidance on the ethical use of generative AI, noting that routine embedded AI tools (like those in standard legal research software) may not require client disclosure.

  • Link: Formal Opinion 2024-5: Generative AI in the Practice of Law

• Document 2: Formal Opinion 2025-6 (December 2025)

  • Summary: Focuses specifically on the use of AI to record, transcribe, and summarize conversations with clients. It stresses that attorneys should obtain informed consent before using AI meeting assistants (like Copilot or Zoom AI), evaluate the privilege/confidentiality risks of the vendor's data retention policies, and independently review AI-generated transcripts for accuracy.

  • Link: Formal Opinion 2025-6: Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with Clients

North Carolina

• Issuing Body: North Carolina State Bar Council

• Document: Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-1

• Summary: Adopted in late 2024, this opinion focuses on the "competency" requirement, stating that a lawyer must understand the risks of "hallucinations" and data privacy before utilizing AI tools in practice, stating plainly, "A lawyer may not abrogate her responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct by relying upon AI."

• Link: NC State Bar 2024 FEO 1

Oregon

• Issuing Body: Oregon State Bar

• Document: Formal Opinion No. 2025-205 (February 2025)

• Summary: Concludes that Oregon lawyers may use generative AI tools if they take reasonable steps to become competent in the technology. It imposes ongoing obligations to supervise the technology (treating it similarly to a non-lawyer assistant), securely store information to prevent privilege waivers, and consult with clients before using AI if the representation requires it.

• Link: Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion No. 2025-205

Pennsylvania

• Issuing Body: Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association

• Document: Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200

• Summary: This joint opinion outlines best practices, emphasizing that lawyers "must verify all citations and legal analysis" generated by AI and must be transparent with clients about the use of AI if it significantly impacts the representation. It advises lawyers that, "[i]n particular, the use of AI applies to the lawyer’s duties of (1) confidentiality, (2) competence, (3)
  candor, (4) truthfulness, (5) supervision, (6) communication, (7) conflicts of interest, and (8) the unauthorized practice of law..." 

• Link: PBA Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200

Texas

• Issuing Body: State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee

• Document: Opinion 705

• Summary: (Addressed in early 2025) This opinion confirms that while attorneys may use AI, they are ultimately responsible for the work product. It specifically warns against "unthinking reliance" on AI outputs and mandates rigorous verification of case law. In conclusion, it advises that, "lawyers should acquire basic technological competence before using any generative AI tool, should always ensure that the tool does not imperil confidential client information, should always verify the accuracy of any responses received from a generative AI tool, and should not charge clients for the time “saved” by using a generative AI program."

• Link: Texas Opinion 705

Virginia

• Issuing Body: Supreme Court of Virginia / Virginia State Bar

• Document: Legal Ethics Opinion 1901 (November 2025)

• Summary: Clarifies the rules around reasonable fees and generative AI. It states that lawyers are not ethically obligated to reduce a flat fee simply because they completed the work more efficiently using AI. It reinforces a value-based billing approach, so long as the overall fee remains reasonable under the factors of Rule 1.5.

• Link: Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 1901

West Virginia

• Issuing Body: Lawyer Disciplinary Board of West Virginia

• Document: Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (June 2024)

• Summary: Emphasizes that AI must "supplement, not replace" legal reasoning. Notably, it takes a strict stance on communication, advising that lawyers should consult with clients prior to using artificial intelligence tools during representation and obtain the client's consent for use in writing.

• Link: Lawyer Disciplinary Board of West Virginia Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01

American Bar Association (ABA)

While not a state bar, the ABA's guidance is cited by many states as a baseline.

• Document: ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024)

• Summary: "Lawyers using GAI tools have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature of GAI. In using GAI tools, lawyers also have other relevant ethical duties, such as those relating to confidentiality, communication with a client, meritorious claims and contentions, candor toward the tribunal, supervisory responsibilities regarding others in the law office using the technology and those outside the law office providing GAI services, and charging reasonable fees. With the ever-evolving use of technology by lawyers and courts, lawyers must be vigilant in complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure that lawyers are adhering to their ethical responsibilities and that clients are protected. 

• Link: ABA Formal Opinion 512

The post Ethics Opinions Covering Lawyers’ Use of Generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

In July 2026, Spokeo, a prominent online people-search website, agreed to a $10 million preliminary settlement to resolve a massive, multi-state class action lawsuit. The settlement puts an end to over five years of complex litigation centered around the unauthorized commercial use of everyday people's personal information. For individuals who are increasingly concerned about how their names, addresses, and backgrounds are leveraged for corporate profit, this resolution marks a major legal victory and a step toward establishing stronger digital boundaries.

The Lawsuit: The Controversy Over "Teaser Profiles"

Unlike most cases involving individuals' personal data, the core of the dispute in this case did not involve a malicious cyberattack, a database leak, or a traditional data breach exposing sensitive financial records to hackers. Instead, the plaintiffs took direct aim at Spokeo’s aggressive marketing practices and business model. As a massive data aggregator, Spokeo collects, compiles, and cross-references vast amounts of publicly available information—including names, current and past addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses—into easily searchable public profiles.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that Spokeo utilized their personal information to generate what they called "teaser profiles". According to court filings, Spokeo actively displayed these teaser profiles, which prominently featured real names and home addresses, to casual site visitors as a targeted marketing tactic. The ultimate goal was to entice these visitors into purchasing paid premium subscriptions to the Spokeo database. The plaintiffs fundamentally argued that by weaponizing their personal identities and data to promote a commercial service without their knowledge or consent, Spokeo had crossed a critical legal and ethical line, causing harm stemming from a distinct loss of control over their personal information.

Right of Publicity: A Unique Legal Approach

Rather than relying on standard consumer protection or data breach statutes, the plaintiffs leveraged a unique and highly effective legal framework: state right of publicity laws. These specific statutes generally prohibit corporations and individuals from utilizing an individual's name, likeness, or identity for advertising or commercial gain without obtaining prior authorization.

The original lawsuit was filed in November 2021 by three plaintiffs asserting claims under California, Ohio, and Indiana law. Spokeo aggressively fought the claims, initially moving to dismiss the case by arguing that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss in April 2022, paving the way for extensive written discovery, document production, depositions, and expert analysis. In 2024, Judge William H. Orrick certified a class of Californians and a class of Ohioans—totaling roughly 275,000 individuals—allowing the case to move forward. Ultimately, the proposed settlement grew to encompass, and resolve right of publicity claims across, nine states: Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington.

Breaking Down the $10 Million Settlement

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Spokeo will be required to establish nine state-specific settlement funds that cumulatively amount to $10 million. Crucially, the settlement designates these funds as entirely non-reversionary, which means that any unclaimed money left over after the initial claims period will not simply be returned to Spokeo's pockets. Instead, any remaining funds will be systematically redistributed to claiming class members where practicable, or otherwise handled according to the specific directives of the court.

How much will individual class members actually receive? The exact payouts will inherently depend on the total number of valid claims filed in each respective state, as well as necessary deductions for attorneys' fees, administrative costs, and court-approved incentive awards. However, assuming an estimated 10% claims rate, legal filings suggest that individual recoveries could range anywhere from tens of dollars to well over $1,000, depending heavily on the state jurisdiction.

Beyond the financial compensation, the settlement also demands meaningful injunctive relief designed to fundamentally alter Spokeo's business practices. Moving forward, Spokeo has formally agreed to modify its search algorithms and user interfaces. When a user conducts a name search, Spokeo must now alter its purchase and payment pages so that the full names and home addresses of individuals in the affected injunction classes will no longer be visible during that critical portion of the transaction.

The Broader Implications for the Information Economy

This landmark $10 million settlement sends a powerful, industry-wide message to data brokers, aggregators, and tech companies alike. The core takeaway is clear: simply aggregating publicly available data does not give a corporation carte blanche to use everyday people's identities as free advertising material. As noted by Morgan & Morgan attorneys representing the plaintiffs following the resolution, "Companies navigating today's information economy routinely put their profits ahead of individuals' rights, and this case is no different. We are pleased that this resolution holds Spokeo accountable for its alleged invasions of people's rights to their information".

For average consumers, this multi-million dollar settlement underscores the critical importance of staying informed and vigilant about thwir digital rights. As the complex legal landscape surrounding data privacy and the right of publicity continues to rapidly evolve, holding powerful data aggregators to strict legal standards will remain absolutely essential in preventing the unauthorized monetization of people's personal lives and identifying information.

The post Spokeo’s $10 Million Settlement: A Major Win for Data Privacy and the Right of Publicity appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Currently, state bar associations possess the primary authority to investigate and discipline the lawyers they license, including even those who work for the federal government who are licensed to practice in their respective jurisdictions. However, the DOJ’s new proposal, published in the Federal Register, seeks to grant the department the authority to intercept and review these ethics complaints "in the first instance," effectively asking state bars to stand down while the DOJ conducts its own review.

This policy proposal has sparked a debate about federalism, professional accountability, and the protections required for federal attorneys to execute their duties. Here is a breakdown of the proposed rule, the rationale behind it, and the arguments from both sides of the aisle.

The Mechanics of the Proposed Rule

At its core, the proposed regulation aims to give the Justice Department priority in reviewing ethics allegations against its current and former attorneys. If finalized, the rule establishes a new protocol for whenever a third party files a grievance with a state bar, or whenever a state disciplinary authority independently initiates an investigation into a DOJ lawyer.

Key mechanisms of the proposal include:

• Right of First Review: The Attorney General or a designated official would be granted the explicit right to review the complaint and the underlying allegations before the state bar proceeds.
• Suspension of State Proceedings: The DOJ would officially notify the applicable state bar of its intent to review the matter and request that the state authority suspend any parallel investigations or procedural steps that require the involvement of the DOJ attorney.
• Enforcement Action: In a clause that has drawn significant attention, the proposed rule stipulates that should a state disciplinary authority refuse the Attorney General's request to pause its probe, the DOJ "shall take appropriate action" to prevent the state bar from interfering with the internal federal review. What constitutes “appropriate action” remains undefined.

The DOJ’s Stated Rationale: Preventing "Weaponization"

The Justice Department contends that this regulatory shift is a necessary protective measure for its workforce. The primary argument hinges on the assertion that the state bar complaint process has become increasingly politicized.

According to the notice of proposed rulemaking, the DOJ argues that there has been an "unprecedented weaponization" of ethics complaints by political activists and watchdog groups. The department asserts that this dynamic creates a hostile environment for career and appointed federal attorneys, threatening to chill the "zealous advocacy" they are expected to provide on behalf of the United States, its agencies, and the executive branch.

From the DOJ's perspective, forcing federal lawyers to constantly defend their law licenses against state-level complaints based on their official government work undermines the Attorney General's broad statutory authority to manage and supervise the department. By conducting an internal review first, the DOJ aims to filter out frivolous or politically motivated grievances, ensuring that attorneys can perform their duties without the looming threat of unwarranted professional ruin.

Pushback from the Legal Community

The proposed rule has been met opposition from various corners of the legal community, including legal scholars, non-partisan watchdogs, and state bar associations. Critics argue that the proposal fundamentally misunderstands the role of state bars and threatens to erode essential accountability mechanisms.

The primary concerns raised by opponents include:

• Evading Independent Oversight: Critics of the proposed rule, such as the New York State Bar Association and groups like Lawyers Defending American Democracy (see the Bloomberg article), argue that subverting state bar authorities would effectively exempt an entire class of lawyers from independent disciplinary processes. They also point out that the DOJ department responsible for investigating such complaints has already suffered "significant attrition" and fear the DOJ could use its internal review to indefinitely stall investigations, protecting its attorneys from legitimate scrutiny.
• Federalism and Legal Precedent: All U.S. attorneys must be licensed by a state bar to practice law. Opponents point to long-standing federal statutes, such as the McDade Amendment, which explicitly require federal government attorneys to be subject to the same state ethical rules and disciplinary mechanisms as any other attorney practicing in that state.
• Context of Recent Complaints: The backlash is also contextualized by recent events. In the months leading up to this proposal, several high-profile ethics complaints were filed against DOJ leadership, including Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, regarding their management of the department. Some critics view this proposed rule as a direct response to those specific state bar complaints.

What Happens Next?

As with all proposed federal regulations, the rule is currently subject to a 30-day public comment period (ending April 6, 2026). During this time, legal professionals, state regulators, and the general public can submit their feedback, which the DOJ must review before issuing a final rule.

If the regulation is finalized in its current form, it is widely expected to face immediate legal challenges in federal court. State bar associations and legal advocacy groups will likely seek injunctions, arguing that the DOJ is overstepping its executive authority and violating established federal laws regarding attorney licensure and discipline.

Conclusion

The proposed shift in how ethics complaints against DOJ attorneys are handled represents a critical flashpoint in the intersection of legal ethics and federal authority. Whether viewed as a necessary defense against political weaponization or an alarming attempt to evade independent oversight, the outcome of this rulemaking process will have lasting implications for the legal profession and the Department of Justice.

If you wish to provide comments regarding this rulemaking, you must submit comments, identified by the agency name, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:  https://www.regulations.gov.

All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket No. OAG199. Paper comments that duplicate an electronic submission are unnecessary. All comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

The post Navigating the DOJ’s Proposed Rule on Attorney Ethics Complaints: Who Watches the Watchmen? appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The opinions, etc. focus on the use of generative AI to review and draft documents. Common themes across these jurisdictions include the duty of competence (understanding the technology), confidentiality (not entering client secrets into public AI models), and supervision/verification (lawyers must verify all AI outputs for accuracy).

Here is the list of state bar associations that have issued specific guidance:

California

• Issuing Body: The State Bar of California

• Document: Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law

• Summary: Issued in late 2023, this comprehensive guide addresses duties of confidentiality, competence, and candor. It specifically warns against inputting confidential client information into non-secure AI tools and requires lawyers to review all AI-generated work product. The Bar suggests that, "this Practical Guidance should be read as guiding principles rather than as 'best practices.'"

• Link: California State Bar Practical Guidance

District of Columbia

• Issuing Body: D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee

• Document: Ethics Opinion 388: Ethics Issues in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

• Summary: Released in April 2024, this opinion emphasizes that lawyers must have a "reasonable understanding" of the technology's capabilities and limitations (specifically hallucinations) and must protect client confidences when using generative AI tools. The opinion make sthe important distinction that, "Lawyers should understand that GAI [generative AI] products are not search engines that accurately report hits on existing data in a constantly updated database. The information available to a GAI product is confined to the dataset on which the GAI has been trained."

• Link: D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 388

Florida

• Issuing Body: The Florida Bar Board of Governors

• Document: Advisory Opinion 24-1

• Summary: Approved in January 2024, this opinion permits the use of generative AI but mandates that lawyers verify the accuracy of the work product, ensure confidentiality (recommending client consent for third-party AI use involving confidential data), and avoid improper billing practices (e.g., double-billing). The opinion also addresses the use of AI chatbots on attorney websites, advising that, "generative AI chatbots that communicate with clients or third parties must comply with restrictions on lawyer advertising..."

• Link: Florida Bar Advisory Opinion 24-1

Illinois

• Issuing Body: Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) of the Supreme Court of Illinois

• Document: The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI

• Summary: Released in late 2025, this guide serves as a practical resource for implementing AI in alignment with ethical duties, including flowcharts and checklists for vetting AI tools.

• Link: ARDC Illinois Attorney's Guide 

Kentucky

• Issuing Body: Kentucky Bar Association

• Document: Ethics Opinion KBA E-457

• Summary: Issued in March 2024, this opinion provides a FAQ-style guide on competence, confidentiality, and billing. It reinforces the lawyer's duty to review the AI output for accuracy and clarifies that lawyers cannot bill for the time spent learning how to use AI, only for the actual benefit provided to the client.

• Link: Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinions

Michigan

• Issuing Body: State Bar of Michigan Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics

• Document: Ethics Opinion JI-155

• Summary: While primarily focused on judicial officers, this opinion (October 2023) establishes that judges and lawyers must maintain competence with advancing technology, including AI, to ensure fair and accurate legal proceedings.

• Link: State Bar of Michigan Opinion JI-155

New Jersey

• Issuing Body: New Jersey Courts / Supreme Court of New Jersey

• Document: Notice to the Bar: Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers

• Summary: Released in January 2024, this notice clarifies that the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to AI. It specifically highlights the duty to verify citations (citing the Mata v. Avianca case) and the prohibition against generating false evidence.

• Link: NJ Courts Preliminary Guidelines (PDF)

New York

• Issuing Body: New York State Bar Association (NYSBA)

• Document: Report and Recommendations of the NYSBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence

• Summary: An extensive report (April 2024) detailing the impact of AI on the legal profession, offering regulatory guidelines, and suggesting that while no new ethics rules are immediately needed, existing rules (competence, supervision) must be strictly applied.

• Link: Formerly at NYSBA Task Force Report; not currently available online

North Carolina

• Issuing Body: North Carolina State Bar Council

• Document: Formal Ethics Opinion 2024-1

• Summary: Adopted in late 2024, this opinion focuses on the "competency" requirement, stating that a lawyer must understand the risks of "hallucinations" and data privacy before utilizing AI tools in practice, stating plainly, "A lawyer may not abrogate her responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct by relying upon AI."

• Link: NC State Bar 2024 FEO 1

Pennsylvania

• Issuing Body: Pennsylvania Bar Association & Philadelphia Bar Association

• Document: Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200

• Summary: This joint opinion outlines best practices, emphasizing that lawyers "must verify all citations and legal analysis" generated by AI and must be transparent with clients about the use of AI if it significantly impacts the representation. It advises lawyers that, "[i]n particular, the use of AI applies to the lawyer’s duties of (1) confidentiality, (2) competence, (3)
  candor, (4) truthfulness, (5) supervision, (6) communication, (7) conflicts of interest, and (8) the unauthorized practice of law..." 

• Link: PBA Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200

Texas

• Issuing Body: State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee

• Document: Opinion 705

• Summary: (Addressed in early 2025) This opinion confirms that while attorneys may use AI, they are ultimately responsible for the work product. It specifically warns against "unthinking reliance" on AI outputs and mandates rigorous verification of case law. In conclusion, it advises that, "lawyers should acquire basic technological competence before using any generative AI tool, should always ensure that the tool does not imperil confidential client information, should always verify the accuracy of any responses received from a generative AI tool, and should not charge clients for the time “saved” by using a generative AI program."

• Link: Texas Opinion 705

American Bar Association (ABA)

While not a state bar, the ABA's guidance is cited by many states as a baseline.

• Document: ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024)

• Summary: "Lawyers using GAI tools have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature of GAI. In using GAI tools, lawyers also have other relevant ethical duties, such as those relating to confidentiality, communication with a client, meritorious claims and contentions, candor toward the tribunal, supervisory responsibilities regarding others in the law office using the technology and those outside the law office providing GAI services, and charging reasonable fees. With the ever-evolving use of technology by lawyers and courts, lawyers must be vigilant in complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure that lawyers are adhering to their ethical responsibilities and that clients are protected. 

• Link: ABA Formal Opinion 512

The post Ethics Opinions Covering Lawyers’ Use of Generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

For US-based Continuing Legal Education (CLE) providers, the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a rapidly evolving toolkit that promises to revolutionize how we create, deliver, and market our essential continuing legal educational offerings. From automating tedious tasks to personalizing the learning experience, AI presents a powerful opportunity to enhance efficiency, engagement, and ultimately, our reach within the legal community.

Here’s how CLE providers can leverage AI to stay ahead:

1. Content Generation & Augmentation: Beyond the Blank Page

The most immediate application of AI lies in its ability to assist with content creation, turning legal expertise into compelling educational modules more quickly and efficiently.

• Drafting & Outlining: AI tools can rapidly generate initial drafts of course descriptions, learning objectives, and even module outlines based on a topic prompt. Imagine providing AI with "recent Supreme Court decision on administrative law" and receiving a structured outline for a 60-minute CLE, complete with key takeaways and potential discussion points. This isn't about replacing legal expertise, but jumpstarting the drafting process, freeing up attorneys to focus on the nuanced legal perspectives that can be included in the course.

• Summarization & Extraction: AI can quickly digest lengthy legal documents, recent case law, or legislative updates, and extract key points relevant to a CLE topic. This allows expert presenters to rapidly grasp the essence of complex material, ensuring their content is current and concise.

• Case Study and Hypothetical Scenario Creation: Need a realistic hypothetical for a ethics course? AI can generate detailed, contextually relevant scenarios based on specified parameters, offering diverse and engaging examples for learners. This can also eliminate the potential ethical pitfall of presenters using (potentially) identifiable facts about their clients in their presenations.

• Question Bank Development: AI can generate multiple-choice questions, true/false statements, and short-answer prompts tailored to specific learning objectives, significantly reducing the time required to build robust assessment tools for courses.

2. Personalized Learning Experiences: The Future of Legal Education

One of AI's most exciting potentials is its ability to tailor the learning journey for individual attorneys, making CLE more relevant and impactful for individual attendees.

• Adaptive Learning Paths: Imagine an AI recommending specific modules to a lawyer based on their practice area, prior course history, and identified knowledge gaps. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, AI can curate personalized learning pathways, ensuring attorneys get the most relevant education for their professional development.

• Intelligent Q&A Bots: For on-demand courses, an AI-powered chatbot could answer frequently asked questions about the course material or legal concepts, providing instant support. This could reduce the burden on volunteer human instructors, leaving more interesting, complex queries for them to answer.

• Feedback and Remediation: AI can analyze learner performance on quizzes and exercises. This can help identify areas of weakness and suggest supplementary materials or topics for review. This targeted remediation can enhance attendee comprehension and retention.

3. Marketing & Distribution: Reaching the Right Attorneys

Beyond content, AI offers unparalleled capabilities in understanding our audience and optimizing our marketing efforts.

• Audience Segmentation & Targeting: AI algorithms can analyze registration data, website interactions, and demographic information to identify distinct segments within our legal audience. This allows for highly targeted marketing campaigns, promoting relevant CLE courses to the attorneys most likely to benefit.

• Predictive Analytics: AI can forecast demand for certain CLE topics based on current legal trends, legislative changes, and attorney interest. This allows us to proactively develop content for emerging areas of law, ensuring timely and in-demand courses.

• Automated Content Promotion: AI tools can optimize social media posts, email subject lines, and ad copy for maximum engagement. They can also schedule posts at optimal times and identify the best platforms to reach specific attorney demographics.

• Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Enhancement: AI can identify keywords and phrases that legal professionals use when searching for CLE, helping us optimize our course titles, descriptions, and website content to rank higher in search results.

• Personalized Marketing Communications: Instead of generic email blasts, AI can craft personalized email recommendations for courses based on an attorney's past registration history, browsing behavior, and stated preferences, dramatically increasing conversion rates.

4. Operational Efficiencies: Streamlining the Back Office

AI can also tackle the administrative burdens that often consume valuable resources.

• Speaker & Topic Matching: For those of us running large CLE programs, AI can analyze attorney expertise, availability, and past presentation topics to suggest optimal speaker-to-topic pairings, ensuring the best content delivery.

• Administrative Task Automation: In the absence of a dedicated Learning Management System (LMS), AI can automate tasks like sending reminder emails, generating certificates of completion, and updating attorney credit hours, freeing up our team for more strategic initiatives.

• Transcription and Captioning: AI-powered transcription services can rapidly convert audio from webinars and in-person seminars into text, making content accessible to a wider audience and providing source material for written summaries or articles. Transcripts can also be used to close-caption video content to make it more accessible to the hearing impaired.

Integrating AI into CLE production and marketing isn't just about adopting new technology; it's about reimagining how we serve the legal community. By embracing these tools, we can create more engaging, personalized, and impactful educational experiences, ensuring attorneys remain sharp, compliant, and at the forefront of their practice.

The future of CLE is intelligent, and it's here now.

The post AI in the CLE Arena: Elevating Content Creation and Marketing for Legal Educators appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept; it is an active partner in the practice of law, promising efficiencies from legal research to document drafting.

However, the rapid adoption of AI in the practice of law is not without significant risk. For every efficiency gained, there is a potential pitfall that could jeopardize client trust, breach ethical duties, and expose the firm to malpractice liability or severe court sanctions. The excitement around AI must be tempered with vigilance and a clear-eyed understanding of the professional responsibility rules that govern the legal profession.

We must recognize that AI tools are just that - tools; they are not lawyers. The buck, ultimately, stops with the supervising attorney and the firm itself.

Here are the top five high-stakes pitfalls that US-based law firms must actively address when their lawyers utilize AI in the practice of law.

1. The Catastrophic "Hallucination" and the Failure of Competence

The most public and immediate threat posed by generative AI is its propensity for "hallucination," where the AI tool fabricates plausible but entirely nonexistent legal authorities, statutes, or facts. The consequences of submitting a brief to a court that relies on fake case law are severe, leading to judicial sanctions, fines, public reprimand, and a catastrophic loss of professional credibility.

This pitfall strikes at the core of ABA Model Rule 1.1: Competence. A lawyer who fails to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content - especially citations and legal analysis - is failing to provide "thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." In the eyes of the court, ignorance is no excuse; the lawyer remains responsible for every assertion made. Firms must understand that AI's confidence in its output is wholly uncorrelated with its accuracy. Attorneys cannot be lazy about these citations just because they are generated by AI. Now more than ever, what you learned in your first-year Legal Research and Writing class is true. "Cite-checking is important."

2. Breaching Client Confidentiality and Privilege

Law firms are custodians of their clients' most sensitive data. The unauthorized disclosure of confidential information is a fundamental breach of trust and a violation of ABA Model Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information.

The AI pitfall here lies in the input. Many popular, general-purpose AI tools (especially those publicly available) may use the data input by a user to train their underlying models. If a lawyer inputs confidential client documents, trade secrets, or litigation strategy into such a tool without ensuring the vendor has robust, legally-vetted privacy protocols, that information could inadvertently become part of the publicly accessible training data for the model. This is an unauthorized disclosure that could waive attorney-client privilege and subject the firm to immense liability and client flight.

3. Algorithmic Bias Leading to Discriminatory Outcomes

AI systems are trained on vast datasets, and if that data reflects historical or societal biases (for instance, in criminal justice records, demographic information, or financial data), the resulting AI output will perpetuate and even amplify those biases.

This pitfall is insidious because the discrimination is hidden behind a seemingly neutral "algorithm," violating a lawyer's obligations regarding fairness and non-discrimination. If a firm uses AI for tasks like predictive policing analysis, e-discovery prioritization, or even internal hiring and promotion decisions, and the tool produces biased results, the firm risks legal challenges under Title VII or other anti-discrimination laws. Worse, it erodes the public's trust in the integrity of the justice system itself. The firm could be seen as outsourcing its ethical responsibility to a "black box" technology.

4. The Erosion of Independent Professional Judgment

A major risk is the over-reliance on AI, where lawyers treat the technology not as a research assistant, but as a definitive authority. This creates an erosion of independent professional judgment, a key element of competent lawyering.

AI is designed to find patterns in data, but it struggles with legal nuance, jurisdictional subtleties, and the human element necessary for effective client strategy. If a junior attorney relies solely on AI for a complex contract clause or a novel legal theory, they may miss critical context, fail to exercise skepticism, and ultimately provide substandard advice. This over-dependence diminishes the value of the human lawyer and potentially increases the firm's exposure to malpractice claims. Firms are hired for their judgment and advice, not their ability to parrot a chatbot.

5. Failure of Supervisory and Training Duties

The adoption of AI necessitates firms to rethink how they approach supervising lawyers and staff, and reviewing their work product. This is especially important in light of ABA Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3 (Responsibilities of Partners, Supervisory Lawyers, and Nonlawyer Assistants).

The final pitfall is the failure of firm leadership to establish and enforce clear, mandatory policies for AI use. Leaving AI implementation to individual attorneys invites chaos. If a partner fails to adequately supervise a junior associate who is using an unauthorized, non-secure AI tool to draft a motion, the partner and the firm can be held professionally responsible for any resulting ethical breach or legal error. This liability extends to non-lawyer staff who may be using AI for administrative or document review tasks without understanding the confidentiality risks.

Solutions: How to Safeguard Your Firm

Avoiding these pitfalls requires a proactive, mandatory, and governance-first approach. Firms are wise to embrace AI, but must do so safely and ethically.

1. Mandate Human Verification and Oversight

• The "Zero Tolerance" Rule for Hallucinations: Enforce a mandatory, documented human review of all AI-generated citations, case law, and factual assertions before submission to a client or court. Treat AI output as a first draft from a highly capable (but fundamentally unreliable) individual.

2. Implement a Vetted-Only AI Policy

• Restrict Tool Usage: Create a firm-approved list of AI tools. This list should exclude all general-purpose AI platforms unless the firm has a dedicated enterprise license that contractually guarantees no client data is used for model training.

• The Confidentiality Triage: Lawyers must be trained to never input confidential, privileged, or personally identifiable client information into an unvetted AI system.

3. Prioritize Technological Competence Training

• CLE Requirements: Make ongoing, mandatory CLE on the benefits, risks, and ethical obligations of AI a requirement for every attorney and relevant staff member. Training must cover how to spot hallucinations and recognize algorithmic bias.

• CLEwebinars.com offers a variety of Continuing Legal Education webinars that cover the opics of law firm implementation of Artificial Intelligence and ways to avoid the kinds of pitfalls discussed here.

4. Establish Clear Supervisory Protocols

• AI Checklist: Incorporate AI usage into existing supervision workflows. Create a checklist for the "Verification of AI Input/Output". Require supervising attorneys to review this "Verification of AI Input/Output" checklist for any work product generated or assisted by AI. This can help ensure accountability under Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3.

5. Open Client Communication

• Informed Consent: Be transparent. If the firm plans to use AI in a material way that involves client data, the firm should consider obtaining informed consent from the client, explaining the benefits and, more importantly, the steps taken to mitigate the risks to confidentiality. This does also give the client the opportunity to opt-out of having AI employed for their matters. Be prepared.

By integrating robust policies, mandatory training, and diligent human oversight, firms can responsibly harness the power of AI while ensuring that the firm’s ethical obligations and commitment to excellence remain uncompromised.

The post Navigating the AI Frontier: Five Pitfalls US Law Firms Must Avoid appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

Data Security is Non-Negotiable: Why the Recent Gmail Password Compromise Should Be a Wake-Up Call for Your Firm

One aspect of delivering top-tier legal service is the absolute security of client-confidential information. That's why the recent headlines about a massive collection of stolen data found online should be a wake-up call to law firms. This collection of stolen data contains millions of compromised email credentials, including a significant number of Gmail accounts.

Google has clarified that its own systems were not breached. They maintain that the leak is a result of widespread "infostealer" malware harvesting credentials from individual infected devices. However, in the end, the distinction doesn’t matter when it comes to the potential for client-confidential information to leak beyond a law firm using tools where the log-in credentials have been compromised.

The cybersecurity threat to law firm data is real, immediate, and squarely focused on any organization where attorneys and staff may use a personal Gmail for business correspondence, or, more critically, reuse their personal login for their professional accounts.

The Unique Risk for Law Firms

Law firms are no longer low-value targets; they are prime targets. Law firms maintain some of the most sensitive, privileged information imaginable: merger and acquisition (M&A) strategies, intellectual property secrets, financial records, litigation tactics, personally identifiable information (PII), and more. This makes a compromised email address a potential major threat to a law firm’s (and individual attorney’s) attorney-client privilege and fiduciary duty.

• “Credential Stuffing” is the Gateway: This is the most significant danger. If an employee uses the same password for their personal Gmail (now compromised) and their firm-issued account or a client portal (whether it is Gmail-based or  not), hackers will use the leaked credentials to "stuff" them into a firm’s more valuable systems. A successful login gives them the keys to an organization’s data.
• Ethical and Regulatory Liability: The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 (https://bit.ly/ABAROPC1-6 ) imposes an ethical obligation on lawyers to make "reasonable efforts" to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of client information. A failure to enforce basic security measures like unique passwords and Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) can be seen as a violation, leading to disciplinary action, massive financial damages, and class-action lawsuits. Case settlements stemming from data breaches in the legal sector are already soaring into the millions.
  • Judge gives final OK to $8M settlement in Orrick data breach
  • Houser LLP $1.3 Million Data Breach Class Action Settlement
  • Law Firm Settles Data Breach Lawsuit: A Warning for Legal Professionals

• The Chain of Trust Breaks: Clients trust law firms with their most sensitive data. The reputational damage from a breach—even one originating from a single reused password—can be irreparable. Once trust is broken, it's virtually impossible to rebuild.

Your Firm’s Action Plan: Non-Negotiable Security Steps

The news of this latest data breach is not a time for panic, but rather for decisive action. Law firms must immediately address the weakest link in their security chain: the human element and “password hygiene.”

1. Mandate Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) Firm-Wide: The single most effective defense is Multi-Factor Authentication. MFA should be mandatory for every system: firm email, VPN, client portals, cloud storage network-connected voicemail systems, etc. A stolen password is useless if the attacker can't pass the second authentication step on a trusted device.
2. Enforce Unique and Strong Passwords: No more re-using passwords. Period. Law firms should mandate the use of a secure password manager for all employees to generate and store complex, unique credentials for every service.
3. Run an Immediate Credential Audit: Encourage or even mandate staff to use services like Have I Been Pwned to check any personal email addresses. Personal accounts should be checked whether or not those personal accounts are used for firm-related sign-ups, since many people reuse usernames and passwords across their work and personal accounts. If a personal account is compromised, the associated business accounts must have their passwords reset immediately.
4. Security Awareness Training (Again): This is not a one-and-done event. Law firms should have regularly-scheduled training sessions focused on the dangers of credential reuse and phishing, and more specifically on infostealer malware. One emphasis of this training should be that hackers are not just targeting the firm's main server; they are targeting firm employees as individuals to gain access.

The digital landscape is ever-changing. Cybercriminals are persistent, and nation-state actors are actively targeting US law firms for corporate and national security intelligence. Lawyers’ professional obligations demand that data security is treated with the same rigor and dedication law firms apply to their most complex legal cases.

No matter the cost of proactive security, it is always negligible when compared to the cost of a data breach.

The post Data Security for Law Firms is Non-Negotiable: Why the Recent Gmail Password Compromise Should Be a Wake-Up Call for Your Firm appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The Case of Mr. B.

In a groundbreaking case that is likely to have far-reaching implications for the legal profession, an Australian solicitor, Mr. B., is facing disciplinary action for filing fake case citations that were generated by artificial intelligence (AI). This increasingly common incident has raised serious questions about the ethical use of AI in legal practice and the potential consequences of relying on AI-generated content without proper verification.

The Allegations

According to the allegations, Mr. B. submitted court documents containing citations to non-existent cases. Upon closer examination, it was discovered that these citations were not merely incorrect, but were entirely fabricated by a sophisticated AI language model capable of producing human-quality text. It has been reported that Mr. B. used the UK-based generative AI tool LawY to create the document. 

Ethical Implications

The case of Mr. B. has sparked intense debate within the legal community about the ethical implications of using AI in legal practice. While AI can be a valuable tool for tasks such as legal research and document drafting, it is essential that lawyers exercise caution and ensure that AI-generated content is used responsibly. This, however, does not free a lawyer from their obligation to read, understand, and check the cites thay are including the documents they file.

One of the key concerns raised by this case is the potential for AI to be used to mislead the court or to deceive opposing counsel. If lawyers are not careful to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content, they could inadvertently make false or misleading statements in court. This could have serious consequences, both for the lawyer and for their clients.

The Role of Attorneys in Verifying AI-Generated Content

To mitigate the risks associated with using AI in legal practice, it is essential that attorneys take steps to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content. This includes:

• Fact-checking: Attorneys should carefully review AI-generated content to ensure that it is consistent with established legal principles and that it is supported by credible evidence.
• Cross-referencing: If AI-generated content cites to specific cases or statutes, attorneys should cross-reference these citations to ensure that they are accurate and that the cases or statutes support the claims made in the document. Every introductory Legal Research and Writing class teaches the importance of cite checking.
• Disclosure: If AI-generated content is used in court documents, attorneys should disclose to the court that AI was used and should explain the steps taken to verify the accuracy of the content.

The Future of AI in Legal Practice

The case of Mr. B. is a stark reminder of the importance of ethical considerations in the use of AI in legal practice. While AI has the potential to revolutionize the way lawyers work, it is essential that lawyers use this technology responsibly and with a deep understanding of its limitations.

As AI continues to evolve, it is likely that we will see even more innovative applications of this technology in the legal profession. However, it is imperative that the legal community develops clear ethical guidelines and best practices for the use of AI to ensure that this technology is used to enhance the justice system, rather than to undermine it.

Conclusion

The case of Mr. B. is a cautionary tale about the dangers of relying on AI-generated content without proper verification. By understanding the ethical implications of using AI in legal practice and by taking steps to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content, lawyers can help to ensure that this technology is used responsibly and effectively to serve the interests of justice.

US-based attorneys can learn more about the ethical implications of using AI in their practice through continuing legal education courses like these.

The post AI-Generated Legal Citations: A New Frontier in Legal Ethics appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.

The Alabama Public Information Act underwent significant revisions effective October 1, 2024. These changes aim to enhance transparency and public access to government records while addressing concerns related to privacy and security. Here's a breakdown of the key modifications:

Expanded Scope of Public Records

The revised law now explicitly defines "public record" to include a broader range of materials, such as:

• Electronic communications: Emails, texts, instant messages, and social media posts related to official government business.
• Audio and video recordings: Recordings of public meetings, interviews, and other official government activities.
• Data bases and data sets: Electronic records containing information collected, maintained, or used by government agencies.

This expansion aims to ensure that the public has access to a more comprehensive set of government records.

Increased Public Access

The revised law strengthens the public's right to inspect and copy public records. It includes provisions that:

• Reduce waiting periods: Government agencies are now required to respond to public record requests within a shorter timeframe, typically 7-10 business days.
• Clarify fees: The law provides clearer guidance on the fees that agencies can charge for copying and inspecting public records, helping to prevent excessive charges.
• Establish appeal procedures: Individuals who are denied access to public records can now appeal the decision to a designated state official.

These changes make it easier for the public to obtain government information and hold officials accountable.

Privacy and Security Protections

While the revised law expands public access, it also includes provisions to protect privacy and security interests. These include:

• Exemptions for sensitive information: Certain types of information, such as personal information, trade secrets, and law enforcement records, may be exempt from disclosure.
• Confidentiality agreements: The law allows for the use of confidentiality agreements when necessary to protect sensitive information.
• Data security requirements: Government agencies are required to implement reasonable security measures to protect public records from unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, or destruction.

These measures help to balance the public's right to know with the need to protect sensitive information.

Impact of the Changes

The revisions to the Alabama Public Information Act are expected to have a significant impact on transparency and accountability in the state. By expanding the definition of public records, increasing public access, and protecting privacy and security interests, the law aims to promote a more open and responsive government.

It is important for both government officials and the public to understand the revised law and its implications. Government agencies must ensure compliance with the law and adopt policies and procedures to facilitate public access to records. The public should be aware of their rights under the law and how to request public records.

The Alabama Public Information Act serves as a valuable tool for citizens to hold their government accountable and ensure that public officials are acting in the best interests of the people. By understanding and utilizing this law, individuals can play an active role in shaping the future of their state.

Read the full text of Section 36-12-40 of the Code of Alabama.

The post Alabama Revises Its Public Records Act appeared first on Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) in California, MCLE Los Angeles, CLE Orange County, Irvine & San Francisco.