Regulators, doctrines, and named cases — defined.

The first ABA Formal Opinion to address generative AI directly. Maps six Model Rules (1.1, 1.6, 1.4, 3.1/3.3, 5.1/5.3, 1.5) to AI use, frames AI as a 'nonlawyer assistant' under Rule 5.3 for supervision purposes, and rejects boilerplate engagement-letter consent for AI use on client confidences.

Opinion 512 is non-binding in any jurisdiction but is the document every state-bar AI opinion since July 2024 has built on. Malpractice carriers treat it as the operative standard. The most consequential interpretive moves are (a) AI as nonlawyer assistant under Rule 5.3 — the basis for the supervision discipline midsize firms must operationalize — and (b) the rejection of generic 'we may use technology' language in engagement letters when AI use involves disclosure of client confidences.

California State Bar practical guidance on generative AI in legal practice. Most explicit on Rule 1.5 fee-billing: a lawyer may not bill for AI-saved time but may bill for time spent reviewing AI-assisted work product. Influences fee-application analysis nationwide.

DC Bar ethics opinion framing AI use as analogous to outsourcing under DC Rule 5.3. Heavy emphasis on supervision documentation. Operative for firms practicing in the District.

Florida Bar ethics opinion requiring affected client informed consent before a lawyer discloses confidential information to a third-party generative AI tool. More aggressive on confidentiality than ABA Opinion 512 — multistate firms with Florida exposure must build to this standard.

NYSBA task-force report and recommendations on AI in legal practice. The most disclosure-forward of any state-level AI guidance — recommends client disclosure as the default in matters where AI is used.

Comment 8 to ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence), adopted by 40+ states, requiring lawyers to keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice 'including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.' ABA Opinion 512 reads this as requiring lawyers to understand AI tool capabilities and limitations as relevant to the matter.

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct establishing the lawyer's duty to maintain client confidentiality. Rule 1.6(c) requires lawyers to make 'reasonable efforts' to prevent unauthorized disclosure. ABA Opinion 512 applies this to AI tool use: inputs containing client confidences require the tool's data-handling practices to support confidentiality.

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct establishing partner responsibility for the conduct of nonlawyer assistants — paralegals, secretaries, contract reviewers, outside services. ABA Opinion 512 reads AI as a nonlawyer assistant under Rule 5.3, making partners directly responsible for AI use in their firm.

The standard set by ABA Opinion 512 for engagement-letter consent to AI use on client confidences. Boilerplate language ('we may use technology to assist in our representation') is explicitly insufficient. Specific consent identifies the AI tools by name or class, the categories of work they will be used for, and the data-handling practices that protect client confidences.

S.D.N.Y. order imposing $5,000 in Rule 11 sanctions on attorneys who submitted a brief containing six fabricated case citations generated by ChatGPT. The case is the on-point precedent for Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) violations stemming from unverified AI output. Cited in every subsequent court standing order on AI use.

The sanctioned conduct in Mata was unverified AI output reaching the tribunal — not AI use itself. The pattern across subsequent sanctions (K&L Gates, Park Avenue Bank, others) is consistent: the failure mode is verification, not adoption. Verification architecture eliminates the exposure.

Legal-AI platform from Thomson Reuters (acquired Casetext in 2023). Named deployments at Fisher Phillips, DLA Piper, Eversheds Sutherland, Bowman and Brooke, Orrick. Used for legal research, document review, deposition preparation.

Enterprise legal-AI platform deployed at 28% of Am Law 100 firms by 2024. Used for first-draft preparation, contract review, document analysis. Tenant-isolated by design; not trained on client data. Frequently cited in midsize-firm AI deployment discussions.