Check a plan to put client information into a public generative tool
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- List the client facts the plan would type into the tool, and whether a written consent for that tool is on the file. Do not paste the facts.
- What the lawyer must review
- You decide whether the facts may be entered. Model Rule 1.6(a) says a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation, or paragraph (b) permits it. Rule 1.6(c) requires reasonable efforts against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure or access. Formal Opinion 512 says that because many self-learning tools are designed so their output could disclose information relating to the representation, informed consent is required before that information is input, and that a general boilerplate line in an engagement letter is not sufficient. A public tool is the case the opinion describes. Consent for one tool is not consent for another.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Consider narrowly defined preparation support after confirming the tool’s capability and permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.