Ohio firms apply ABA Op. 512 to Ohio RPC 1.5 while the Ohio Supreme Court's emerging guidance develops.

Absent a state-specific formal opinion, Ohio practitioners apply ABA Opinion 512 to Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5. Rule 1.5 governs the reasonableness of fees and the requirement that the basis or rate of the fee be communicated to the client; the ABA Op. 512 framework — overhead-by-default, written disclosure for any pass-through, and informed consent for self-learning third-party tools that touch confidences — is the operational baseline.

The Ohio Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary Counsel publishes guidance through Board of Professional Conduct opinions. Ohio firms watch the BPC publication cycle for any AI-specific advisory opinion that would tighten or supersede the ABA Op. 512 default. Until that opinion lands, the engagement-letter clauses on the pillar page travel without modification — and the diligence record is the demonstration that the firm reasoned from the operative authority.

The Ohio AI Council (a state-government working group) publishes adjacent policy that informs but does not control bar-discipline analysis. The Council's recommendations and any executive-branch posture inform the firm's broader AI governance posture, but the operative authority for fee and engagement-letter conduct remains Ohio RPC 1.5 as read through ABA Op. 512.

The Ohio overlay therefore behaves the same as the pillar pack at the clause level. The freshness loop is the additive piece: Ohio BPC opinions and Ohio AI Council updates feed back into Clause 02 (third-party AI consent) and Clause 04 (fee-treatment disclosure) the moment a state-specific authority changes the read.