This guide is not legal advice.
What it is
On July 29, 2024, the ABA issued Formal Opinion 512, its first formal ethics opinion on lawyers' use of generative AI tools. It applies existing ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct to AI use.
What it asks for, for AI and data
| Duty | What the opinion says lawyers should do |
|---|---|
| Competence (Model Rule 1.1) | Understand the benefits and risks of the AI tools they use, including the tool's limits, and review outputs appropriately. |
| Confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6) | Assess the risk that client information could be disclosed or accessed. Before entering client information into a tool that can learn from it and share it, obtain the client's informed consent; general consent language in an engagement letter is not enough. |
| Communication (Model Rule 1.4) | In some situations, tell clients about AI use. |
| Candor and meritorious claims (Model Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.4(c)) | Verify AI output before relying on it in filings and statements. |
| Supervision (Model Rules 5.1, 5.3) | Set policies for AI use and supervise lawyers and staff who use it. |
| Fees (Model Rule 1.5) | Charge reasonable fees. In most circumstances, do not bill clients for time spent learning how to use a generative AI tool. |
How Matrix helps
| Duty | How Matrix helps |
|---|---|
| Confidentiality | Matrix runs inside your firm, offline by default; it reaches an outside service only if your IT team approves it. Synexas does not receive client information, except in a proof you ask for, which uses data you authorize under an NDA and is deleted afterwards. Models are not trained on your data. |
| Ethical walls | Files are private by default and access is by role. Matter-specific permissions and sharing requirements are agreed for your workflow. |
| Competence and candor | Answers drawn from documents include source references for review, and missing information stays visible. |
| Supervision | Your firm holds every account and can review and export local audit logs. |
Local deployment does not decide whether a lawyer has met a professional duty. It gives the firm a more controlled place to apply its own AI policy, review and billing rules.
What stays with you
- Your firm's AI policy and training
- Deciding when client consent or disclosure is needed
- Reviewing and verifying every output before use
- Applying your own state's rules and opinions
- Billing practices
Questions to ask any AI vendor
- Does the tool learn from our inputs, and could information reach other users or clients?
- Where are client documents processed and stored?
- Can the vendor's staff access our matters?
- Does every answer show its source?
- Can we restrict access by matter?