---
title: "Search the firm's know-how and return the passage that answers the question"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/search-firm-know-how-with-ai/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "KM-B12-03-US"
practice_area: "Knowledge Management"
tier: "green"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Search the firm's know-how and return the passage that answers the question

> Return the precedent title, the file path and the passage that matches the question. Write no new clause and no advice.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/search-firm-know-how-with-ai/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 | Green: AI drafts, lawyer checks |
| How AI is used | Return the precedent title, the file path and the passage that matches the question. Write no new clause and no advice. |
| What the lawyer must review | Model Rule 1.1 requires competent representation, including the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary. Comment 8 says a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks of relevant technology. Formal Opinion 512 says a lawyer who relies on a generative tool without an appropriate degree of independent verification can violate Rule 1.1, and that the amount of review depends on the tool and the task. The opinion gives as an example that a lawyer who has tested a summarising tool on a smaller set, by reading the documents and comparing them with the summaries, need not manually re-read an entire later set if that test found the summaries accurate. A search that returns a path still has to be opened when the passage will be used. Model Rule 1.6(c) requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorised access to information relating to the representation. You open the hit before anyone relies on it. You do not send client information to a public tool to run the search. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Search firm know-how with AI](https://ailawframework.com/practice/knowledge-management/search-firm-know-how-with-ai.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: Return the precedent title, the file path and the passage that matches the question. Write no new clause and no advice.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- The subset-testing example in Opinion 512 is for a tool the lawyer has already tested. A new tool, or a corpus that has changed, needs a fresh test before anyone treats search hits as reliable.
- The opinion says some courts require lawyers to disclose generative-AI use. That is a filing issue, not a search issue, but a passage copied into a filing brings it back.

## Sources

- [ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8, competence and 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)
- [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, including paragraph (c) on reasonable efforts](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/) (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.*