DC Op. 388 fixes the hourly-billing efficiency rule explicitly: the firm bills only the hours actually expended.

The D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee issued Opinion 388 in April 2024 addressing lawyers' use of generative AI tools. Two operational additions to the ABA Opinion 512 baseline matter for DC-domiciled firms and any matter involving DC-licensed attorneys.

First, the hourly-billing efficiency rule. Opinion 388 states: "If a lawyer has agreed to charge the client on this basis (i.e., hourly), and it turns out that the lawyer is particularly efficient in accomplishing a given result, it nonetheless will not be permissible to charge the client for more hours than were actually expended on the matter." [S07] The rule is explicit: efficiency does not entitle the lawyer to bill more than actual hours, regardless of whether the efficiency came from AI tooling, prior expertise, or template reuse. The DC posture reads through directly to Rule 1.5 and removes ambiguity about whether AI-saved time can be billed at the pre-AI hour count.

Second, the two-question confidentiality framework for AI tool selection. Opinion 388 instructs the lawyer to answer two questions before disclosing client information to a generative AI program: "Will information I provide to the GAI be visible to the GAI provider or other strangers to the attorney-client relationship? Will my interactions with the GAI affect answers that later users of the GAI will get in a way that could reveal information I provided to the GAI?" [S07] The framework maps directly into the matter-file confidentiality analysis and creates a documentable per-matter record of the tool-selection reasoning.

The combined posture for DC-venued matters: clause 03 of the language pack states the actual-hours-only rule explicitly in the engagement letter, and clause 02 carries the two-question framework into the confidentiality analysis recorded for each AI-material matter.