---
title: "Draft the firm's rule on using client documents as knowledge for a generative tool"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/draft-a-firm-policy-on-using-client-documents-as-ai-knowledge/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "KM-B12-18-US"
practice_area: "Knowledge Management"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Draft the firm's rule on using client documents as knowledge for a generative tool

> Compare the firm's current written policy with the duties in Model Rule 1.6 and Formal Opinion 512, and list gaps. Write no policy clause.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/draft-a-firm-policy-on-using-client-documents-as-ai-knowledge/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 | Compare the firm's current written policy with the duties in Model Rule 1.6 and Formal Opinion 512, and list gaps. Write no policy clause. |
| What the lawyer must review | You write the policy. Model Rule 1.6(a) and (c) govern disclosure of, and reasonable efforts to protect, information relating to a representation. Formal Opinion 512 says lawyers must consider competence, confidentiality, communication, supervision, meritorious claims, candor to the tribunal and reasonable fees when they use generative tools. It says informed consent, with an explanation of the risks and of who will have access, is required before information relating to the representation is input into a tool that does not keep that information confidential. It also says managerial lawyers must adopt clear policies on permissible use, and must train lawyers and nonlawyers on the limits of the tools and on secure handling. Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1 includes the benefits and risks of relevant technology in competence. The policy has to say which tools are allowed, what may be uploaded, and that a lawyer opens any output before it is used. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Draft a firm policy on using client documents as AI knowledge](https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/draft-a-firm-policy-on-using-client-documents-as-ai-knowledge.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: Compare the firm's current written policy with the duties in Model Rule 1.6 and Formal Opinion 512, and list gaps. Write no policy clause.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- Opinion 512 also discusses fees under Model Rule 1.5. The fee section was not used for this policy check. Open it before the policy speaks about billing for tool use.
- State bar opinions can be stricter than the ABA opinion. Open the state opinion before the policy is adopted for that office.

## Sources

- [ABA Formal Opinion 512 (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 1.6](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/) (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)

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Policy on putting client documents into an AI knowledge tool](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/knowledge-management/client-document-ai-input-policy.md) | Policy | Yellow | A policy for when personal information from a client document may be put into an AI knowledge tool: APP 6, the OAIC warning against public generative tools, and the point that a false or generated… |
| [Privilege and confidentiality clearance before know-how ingestion](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/knowledge-management/privilege-ingestion-assessment.md) | Form | Red | Decision record, under s 118 and the duty of confidence, on whether a set of advice or client documents may be put into a know-how collection or an AI retrieval index. |

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.*