---
title: "List who can open each store in an AI knowledge tool"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/audit-who-can-see-what-in-ai-knowledge-tools/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "KM-B12-24-US"
practice_area: "Knowledge Management"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# List who can open each store in an AI knowledge tool

> From the access export, list the person or role, the store, and the permission the export states. Write no conclusion that the arrangement is reasonable, and no change to a permission.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/audit-who-can-see-what-in-ai-knowledge-tools/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Knowledge Management](https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the access export, list the person or role, the store, and the permission the export states. Write no conclusion that the arrangement is reasonable, and no change to a permission. |
| What the lawyer must review | You decide whether the arrangement meets Model Rule 1.6(c), which requires a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorised disclosure of, or unauthorised access to, information relating to the representation of a client. Rule 1.6(a) is the duty not to reveal that information without informed consent, implied authorisation, or a permission in paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) was not applied. ABA Formal Opinion 512 ties the use of a generative tool to that confidentiality duty and requires informed consent before client information is put into a tool that will not keep it confidential. The export is a list of settings. It is not the reasonableness judgment. No vendor-security standard was opened. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Audit who can see what in AI knowledge tools](https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/audit-who-can-see-what-in-ai-knowledge-tools.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: From the access export, list the person or role, the store, and the permission the export states. Write no conclusion that the arrangement is reasonable, and no change to a permission.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- Comment 8 requires attention to the benefits and risks of relevant technology. It does not state a technical control that must be switched on.
- A permission that does not appear in the export is not assumed. Ask for a fresh export rather than inferring access.

## 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 on technology](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)

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Information barrier record for an AI knowledge tool](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/knowledge-management/ai-information-barrier-record.md) | Form | Red | Record of who may and may not retrieve a matter through the firm's AI search or know-how assistant, and the test that showed the barrier holds. |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

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