Letter · Costs, billing & litigation funding
Engagement letter with a generative AI clause (United States)
Engagement letter stating the scope and the basis of the fee, and separating ordinary generative-AI use from any input of information relating to the representation, which needs a completed tool schedule rather than a boilerplate consent.
- Kind
- Letter. A letter or email you adapt and send.
- Where it applies
- United States
- AI use
- Yellow You and the tool draft together, with you directing. You check every statement you rely on.
- Law stated as at
- 22 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked on 22 October 2026 against the 12 authorities it cites, for United States.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use when a US lawyer opens a matter and will say how the work is staffed, charged and, where relevant, assisted by a generative AI tool. Pair it with a completed tool schedule before any information relating to the representation is put into a tool. It is not a litigation-funding disclosure and it is not a conflict waiver.
Used for these tasks
- Draft a costs disclosure from the matter scope and the scale or estimate
- Review a bill for AI-assisted work
- Build a draft bill from the time records and the disclosure
- Compare a draft bill to the last costs disclosure and any updates
Each task page says how far AI may help with the task and what the lawyer must review.
How AI may be used
A tool may assemble this letter from the firm's approved clauses and from a tool schedule the lawyer has already completed. The lawyer checks the scope, the fee and every consent particular before the letter is sent.
AI may
- Insert the scope, names, rates and dates the lawyer has written into the matching placeholders
- Copy into the schedule only those tool facts that appear in the vendor terms or the approval record the lawyer attaches
- List blanks, and flag a schedule that still contains a general consent sentence and no tool-specific risk
AI must not
- Must not describe a tool's training, retention or access from marketing text or from the tool's own answer
- Must not state that the client has given informed consent, or send the letter
- Must not set a rate, a flat fee or a per-use charge, or add time for learning a tool the firm uses generally
- Must not leave a boilerplate consent in place of the particulars Formal Opinion 512 requires
The lawyer checks
- The basis of the fee and expenses is stated, and any change from the firm's usual basis is explained, before or within a reasonable time of starting, preferably in writing
- If information relating to the representation will be input, the schedule names the tool and the risks in enough detail that consent can be informed
- Hourly entries will be actual time, and general learning time for a tool the firm uses regularly is not billed
- The adopted rule in the jurisdiction, and any written-fee statute it has, has been checked. California's 2026 guidance is not a national rule
Method: how the Green, Yellow and Red levels are decided. This is guidance for planning, not legal advice.
Read the full text
The full text is available after you log in. It is free. When you log in you can:
- read the whole precedent, with its drafting notes beside it;
- copy it, or download it as a Word file or Markdown;
- add it to your firm’s knowledge base, so colleagues can find it;
- let the AI tools you connect read it from that knowledge base.
The summary, the law it rests on and the AI-use guidance above stay public. Privacy.
More in Costs, billing & litigation funding
- Without prejudice save as to costs offer, with the client's settlement figures kept off the letter
- Uniform Law standard costs disclosure form (matters likely to cost $750 to $3,000): completion guide
- Costs disclosure and costs agreement letter (Uniform Law ss 174 and 180)
- Offer of compromise under UCPR rule 20.26 (NSW)
- Statement disclosing third-party litigation funding (United States)
- Engagement and costs agreement clauses: AI use, client consent and charging for AI-assisted work
- Itemised bill and letter answering a request for one
- Timekeeper check before billing generative AI work (United States)
- Billing and time-recording policy for AI-assisted work
- Worksheet comparing a draft bill with the costs disclosure
- Letter when a flat fee should change because a tool did the work (United States)
- Disclosure to an associated third party payer, and of another law practice
- Notice to client of a significant change in legal costs (Uniform Law s 174(1)(b))
- Litigation funding agreement review checklist (including class actions)
- Progress report of legal costs incurred
All precedents for Costs, billing & litigation funding · Tasks and AI use in this area