---
title: "List client facts that would be pasted into a tool"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/use-the-south-australian-courts-gen-ai-guidelines-in-a-criminal-matter/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A20-B14-3-US"
practice_area: "Criminal Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# List client facts that would be pasted into a tool

> List each client fact that would be typed into a generative tool for this criminal matter, and state whether a written consent for that use is on the file. Do not paste the facts.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/use-the-south-australian-courts-gen-ai-guidelines-in-a-criminal-matter/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Criminal Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | List each client fact that would be typed into a generative tool for this criminal matter, and state whether a written consent for that use 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 to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure or access. Formal Opinion 512 says that because many self-learning tools are designed so that their output could lead to disclosure of 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. No court order governing generative tools in a criminal case was opened. The absence of an order on the file is not permission to paste the facts. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Use the South Australian courts Gen AI guidelines in a criminal matter](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/use-the-south-australian-courts-gen-ai-guidelines-in-a-criminal-matter.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: List each client fact that would be typed into a generative tool for this criminal matter, and state whether a written consent for that use 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

- Consent for one tool is not consent for a different tool.
- A fact about a complainant or a witness is still information relating to the representation.

## 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 3.3, Candor toward the Tribunal](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/) (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.*