Draft a firm rule against putting client information into a public AI tool
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Turn Opinion 512's confidentiality points and Model Rule 1.6 into headings for a firm rule, with a blank under each heading for the firm's own examples. Do not present the draft as adopted.
- What the lawyer must review
- Opinion 512 says a lawyer must not input information relating to the representation into a generative tool that discloses it, unless the client gives informed consent or an exception applies, and must understand the tool's terms. Model Rule 1.6 is the duty. The firm adopts the rule. You check every sentence before it is issued, including whether a named tool's terms match the prohibition. A public tool is not made safe by a policy that no one follows.
- Written for / version
- United States versionUS
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.