---
title: "Check a plan to put client information into a public generative tool"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information/check-a-plan-to-enter-client-confidential-information-into-a-publicly-av/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A51-MA20261022-7-US"
practice_area: "Confidentiality & client information"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Check a plan to put client information into a public generative tool

> 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.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information/check-a-plan-to-enter-client-confidential-information-into-a-publicly-av/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Confidentiality & client information](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| 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 | United States |
| Applies to | [Check a plan to enter client confidential information into a publicly available generative system](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/confidentiality-and-client-information/check-a-plan-to-enter-client-confidential-information-into-a-publicly-av.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: 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.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- Do not paste the facts in order to test the plan.
- Boilerplate in an engagement letter is not the consent Opinion 512 describes.

## Sources

- [ABA Model Rule 1.6, Confidentiality of Information](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/comment_on_rule_1_1/) (checked 2026-10-22)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*