Using AI in a law firm under ABA Formal Opinion 512

The opinion says a lawyer does not need to be an expert in AI but must have a reasonable understanding of what the tool can and cannot do, and must check its output to a degree that fits the task. Relying on an answer without review is not consistent with the duty of competence.

Every answer Mike gives links to the page of the document or the case it relied on, so checking is a click rather than a search. Each setup includes a working session on the firm's real matters, where attorneys see where the tool is strong and where it needs closer review.

The opinion asks lawyers to understand who can see information entered into an AI tool and whether the tool learns from it. It notes that putting client information into a tool that trains on it can require the client's informed consent, and that boilerplate in an engagement letter is not enough.

In a Mike setup, documents stay in the firm's own installation, and the firm chooses the model provider under its own account, or runs a model on its own hardware. Mike does not train a model on firm documents. The firm still owes its own review of the provider's terms; our security page explains each piece.

Some uses of AI must be disclosed to the client: when the client asks, when the engagement terms require it, or when the output feeds a significant decision in the matter. The opinion leaves much of this to the lawyer's judgment about what the client would reasonably want to know.

Because Mike shows which documents and cases each answer relied on, a lawyer can explain how work product was prepared in concrete terms.

A lawyer billing hourly may charge only for time actually spent, including time spent reviewing AI output, not for the hours the tool saved. General overhead, including learning a tool the lawyer will use across matters, is generally not billable to a client. Charging a client for a tool's cost directly needs a reasonable basis and, where required, the client's agreement.

Mike does not change a firm's billing practices. The firm sets its own policy, and the opinion is a sound starting point for it.

Filing a brief with invented citations or misstated holdings can violate the duties of candor to the tribunal and the rule against frivolous claims. The opinion treats careful review of AI-drafted filings as part of those duties.

Mike checks case-law citations against CourtListener and reads the opinion before it summarizes a holding. That narrows the risk; it does not remove the lawyer's duty to read the authority before relying on it.

Managing lawyers should set clear firm policy on the use of AI and train lawyers and staff on it, and supervising lawyers remain responsible for the work of the people and vendors they oversee.

In Mike, the firm's administrator decides who has an account, and work is shared by project, so supervisors can see what was asked and what came back. Cuanto Labs is a vendor under that supervision, and the setup agreement states what we can access.