PA Joint Op. 2024-200 enumerates eight ethical duties triggered by AI use and bars confidential inputs to inadequately-protected AI.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility and the Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee jointly issued Formal Opinion 2024-200 on May 22, 2024. The opinion goes beyond the ABA Op. 512 baseline in two ways that change how engagement letters and pre-bill files must be assembled for Pennsylvania-domiciled firms and any matter involving Pennsylvania-licensed attorneys.

First, the eight-duty framework. Joint Op. 2024-200 holds: "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." [S11] The eight-duty enumeration is broader than the six-rule frame in ABA Op. 512 — it pulls candor and truthfulness apart as separate duties, surfaces conflicts of interest as a standalone AI-triggered duty, and adds unauthorized practice of law as an explicit eighth duty. Engagement-letter clauses must satisfy across all eight, not just six.

Second, the confidential-input prohibition. Joint Op. 2024-200 states: "A lawyer must not input any confidential information of a client into AI that lacks adequate confidentiality and security protections." [S11] The rule operates as a hard floor below ABA Op. 512's informed-consent standard — in Pennsylvania, consent does not cure an inadequate tool. The opinion also adopts a competence-parity rule: "Lawyers must be proficient in using technological tools to the same extent they are in employing traditional methods." [S11] The matter file must therefore carry a vendor-attestation log per authorized tool and a competence-training record per attorney.