List confidentiality risks of using a generative tool on competition advice
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- List what client facts the proposed use would enter into the tool, and whether the tool's terms say it trains on inputs or discloses them. Do not write the board note.
- What the lawyer must review
- Opinion 512 says a lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation, and must not put client information into a generative tool that trains on inputs or leaks them, unless the client gives informed consent or another Model Rule 1.6 ground applies. Competition advice is that kind of information. The opinion does not state the law of privilege, and no privilege statute was opened, so do not tell the board that a use waives privilege. You write the note. Model Rule 1.6 is the duty.
- 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 that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
- Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
- 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.