---
title: "List the risks of a client using a public tool on a family file"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/family-law/advise-a-client-on-risks-of-using-chatgpt-for-family-law-documents/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A16-B8-2-US"
practice_area: "Family Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# List the risks of a client using a public tool on a family file

> Turn Opinion 512 and the California 2026 generative-AI guidance into a checklist of risks: confidentiality, invented citations, and a tool that gives the client legal advice. Write no letter and no advice to the client.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/family-law/advise-a-client-on-risks-of-using-chatgpt-for-family-law-documents/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Family Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/family-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Turn Opinion 512 and the California 2026 generative-AI guidance into a checklist of risks: confidentiality, invented citations, and a tool that gives the client legal advice. Write no letter and no advice to the client. |
| What the lawyer must review | You write anything the client receives. Opinion 512 requires competence, confidentiality, and a check of the tool's output, and it warns against putting client information into a tool that discloses it outside the firm. The California 2026 guidance says an agentic system must not make substantive legal determinations without meaningful lawyer supervision, and that candor cannot be delegated. Family Code § 2100 still requires a full disclosure. A client's own draft does not satisfy that duty until you have checked it. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Advise a client on risks of using ChatGPT for family law documents](https://ailawframework.com/practice/family-law/advise-a-client-on-risks-of-using-chatgpt-for-family-law-documents.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: Turn Opinion 512 and the California 2026 generative-AI guidance into a checklist of risks: confidentiality, invented citations, and a tool that gives the client legal advice. Write no letter and no advice to the client.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- The checklist is for you. The client communication is a separate document you write.
- A public tool is the wrong place for the disclosure file. Opinion 512 addresses input that leaves the firm.

## Sources

- [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)
- [State Bar of California, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (2026)](https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [California Family Code § 2100 (disclosure of assets, liabilities, income and expenses)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=2100.) (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.*