---
title: "Set an internal rule for cultural information and a generative tool"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/set-a-cultural-data-protocol-for-ai-use/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A36-B7-5-US"
practice_area: "Native Title & First Nations Legal Work"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Set an internal rule for cultural information and a generative tool

> Write an internal instruction that cultural information the client treats as confidential is not entered into a tool that discloses it, and that a person checks any output before it is used.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/set-a-cultural-data-protocol-for-ai-use/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Native Title & First Nations Legal Work](https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Write an internal instruction that cultural information the client treats as confidential is not entered into a tool that discloses it, and that a person checks any output before it is used. Write no statute and no sentence that a site is clear. |
| What the lawyer must review | Model Rule 1.6 prohibits revealing information relating to the representation, including cultural information the client treats as confidential, by entering it into a tool that discloses it, unless the client gives informed consent or an exception applies. ABA Formal Opinion 512 requires the lawyer to verify generative output. 25 USC section 3002 is an ownership and excavation statute for Native American cultural items on federal or tribal lands after November 16, 1990. It is not a data-protocol statute. 54 USC section 306108 is a federal agency duty to take into account effects on historic property. Neither section authorizes a tool to hold that information. You adopt the instruction. The tool does not invent a cultural-data statute. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Set a cultural-data protocol for AI use](https://ailawframework.com/practice/native-title-and-first-nations-legal-work/set-a-cultural-data-protocol-for-ai-use.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: Write an internal instruction that cultural information the client treats as confidential is not entered into a tool that discloses it, and that a person checks any output before it is used. Write no statute and no sentence that a site is clear.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- Do not describe a NAGPRA cultural-data rule. None was opened.
- The instruction is internal. It is not a notice to an agency.

## 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)
- [25 USC section 3002 (ownership and excavation of Native American cultural items)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/3002) (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.*