Ethical use of generative AI and LLM by lawyers; ABA guidelines.

"The American Bar Association (ABA) has provided comprehensive guidance on the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) by attorneys, primarily through **Formal Opinion 512**, issued on July 29, 2024, by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. This opinion outlines how existing ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the use of generative AI tools in legal practice. While these guidelines are tailored for American attorneys, they offer valuable insights for Filipino lawyers, as many ethical principles are universal and align with global standards of legal professionalism, including those in the Philippines under the **Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA)**. Below, I provide a detailed discussion of the ABA guidelines, their implications, and how Filipino lawyers can benefit from adopting or adapting these principles in their practice.

---

#Overview of ABA Formal Opinion 512 on Generative AI

Formal Opinion 512 addresses the ethical obligations of lawyers using generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research, or other LLMs, which generate content based on user prompts by analyzing vast datasets. The opinion emphasizes that while these tools can enhance efficiency, they introduce risks like inaccurate outputs (often called "hallucinations"), confidentiality breaches, and ethical lapses if not used responsibly. The guidance is structured around six key ethical obligations under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct:

1. **Competence (Model Rule 1.1)** 
2. **Confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6)** 
3. **Communication (Model Rule 1.4)** 
4. **Meritorious Claims and Candor Toward the Tribunal (Model Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.4(c))** 
5. **Supervisory Responsibilities (Model Rules 5.1, 5.3)** 
6. **Fees (Model Rule 1.5)** 

Below, I discuss each of these areas comprehensively, followed by their relevance and benefits for Filipino lawyers.

---

Detailed Discussion of ABA Guidelines

1. Competence (Model Rule 1.1)

The ABA requires lawyers to provide competent representation, which includes having the "legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary" for representation, as well as understanding the benefits and risks of technologies used in legal services. For generative AI: 
- **Requirement**: Lawyers must have a reasonable and current understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the specific AI tools they use. This includes awareness of risks like AI "hallucinations" (generating false or misleading information, such as nonexistent case law). 

- **Practical Guidance**: 
  - Lawyers should independently verify AI-generated outputs, especially for legal research, document drafting, or analysis, to ensure accuracy. 
  - Ongoing education is necessary due to the rapid evolution of AI technology. Lawyers cannot rely solely on AI without exercising professional judgment. 
  - The level of review depends on the task and tool, but overreliance without verification risks incompetent representation. 

2. Confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6)
 
Model Rule 1.6 mandates that lawyers keep all client information confidential unless the client gives informed consent. This extends to former and prospective clients (Rules 1.9(c) and 1.18(b)). 
- **Requirement**: Lawyers must prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of client information when using generative AI. 
- **Practical Guidance**: 
  - Before inputting client data into AI tools, lawyers must evaluate: 
    - The likelihood of disclosure or unauthorized access. 
    - The sensitivity of the information. 
    - The feasibility of implementing safeguards and their impact on representation. 
  - "Self-learning" AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) that train on user inputs pose significant risks, as client data may be stored, shared, or used to generate outputs for others. Lawyers must obtain **informed client consent** before inputting confidential information into such tools, and boilerplate consent in engagement letters is insufficient. 
  - Lawyers should review the AI tool’s terms of use, privacy policy, and data security measures to ensure compliance with confidentiality obligations. 
  - Internal risks within a firm (e.g., other lawyers accessing client data via shared AI tools) must also be addressed, potentially requiring ethical walls or access controls. 

3. Communication (Model Rule 1.4)*

Lawyers must reasonably consult with clients about the means of accomplishing their objectives and explain matters to enable informed decision-making. 
- **Requirement**: Lawyers may need to disclose their use of AI to clients in certain circumstances. 
- **Practical Guidance**: 
  - Disclosure is required if: 
    - A client asks how work was conducted or whether AI was used. 
    - AI use is relevant to the basis or reasonableness of fees. 
    - Engagement agreements or outside counsel guidelines mandate disclosure. 
    - The AI tool’s role is significant to the task or representation, or if its use might affect the client’s evaluation of the lawyer’s work. 
  - Lawyers should discuss the novelty, risks, and limitations of AI tools with clients, tailoring communication to the client’s sophistication and preferences. 

4. Meritorious Claims and Candor Toward the Tribunal (Model Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.4(c))

Lawyers must avoid frivolous claims and ensure candor toward tribunals, including courts and other adjudicatory bodies. 
- **Requirement**: Lawyers must carefully review AI-generated outputs to ensure they are accurate and not misleading, correcting any errors promptly. 
- **Practical Guidance**: 
  - AI tools can produce fictitious citations or inaccurate legal analysis, as seen in cases where lawyers were sanctioned for submitting AI-generated briefs with nonexistent case law. 
  - Lawyers must comply with local court rules, some of which require proactive disclosure of AI use in filings. 
  - Overreliance on AI without verification risks misrepresentations that violate ethical duties of candor and honesty. 

5. Supervisory Responsibilities (Model Rules 5.1, 5.3)

Law firms’ managerial and supervisory lawyers must ensure that all lawyers and nonlawyer assistants comply with professional conduct rules. 
- **Requirement**: Firms must establish clear policies on AI use and provide training on its ethical and practical implications. 
- **Practical Guidance**: 
  - Policies should address permissible uses of AI, ethical risks (e.g., confidentiality, accuracy), and practical pitfalls (e.g., hallucinations). 
  - Training should cover AI capabilities, limitations, and compliance with ethical obligations. 
  - Supervisory lawyers must ensure that work outsourced to third parties using AI complies with ethical standards. 
  - Subordinate lawyers cannot use AI in ways that violate professional obligations, even if directed by a supervisor. 

6. Fees (Model Rule 1.5)

Lawyers must charge reasonable fees and communicate the basis for fees and expenses to clients. 
- **Requirement**: AI use should not lead to inflated billing, and efficiency gains should benefit clients. 
- **Practical Guidance**: 
  - Lawyers cannot bill for time saved by using AI (e.g., charging hourly rates for work that would have taken longer without AI). 
  - Costs of AI tools can be treated as office overhead or charged to clients on a per-use basis, but only with prior client consent and clear explanation in fee agreements. 
  - Lawyers may not charge clients for time spent learning AI tools for general use, but they may charge for learning a specific tool requested by a client, provided it is agreed upon in advance. 

---

Benefits for Filipino Lawyers

While the ABA guidelines are not binding in the Philippines, they provide a robust framework that Filipino lawyers can adapt to align with the **Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA)**, which governs legal ethics in the Philippines. The CPRA, effective since 2023, emphasizes competence, diligence, confidentiality, and client communication, principles that resonate with the ABA’s guidance. Here’s how Filipino lawyers can benefit from these guidelines:

1. Enhancing Competence and Efficiency
- **Relevance to CPRA**: Canon II, Section 1 of the CPRA requires lawyers to "perform their duties with competence and diligence," which includes staying updated on legal and technological developments. The ABA’s emphasis on understanding AI capabilities and limitations encourages Filipino lawyers to invest in continuous learning about AI tools, ensuring they remain competitive in a globalized legal market. 
- **Benefits**: 
  - **Improved Efficiency**: AI tools like Lexis+ AI or proprietary LLMs can streamline tasks such as legal research, contract analysis, and document drafting, allowing Filipino lawyers to handle more cases efficiently, especially in solo or small firms where resources are limited. 
  - **Access to Justice**: By reducing time spent on administrative tasks, AI can help Filipino lawyers serve more clients, including those in underserved communities, aligning with the CPRA’s focus on public service (Canon I, Section 2). 
  - **Global Competitiveness**: As multinational firms and clients increasingly adopt AI, Filipino lawyers who master these tools can better compete for international clients or collaborate with global law firms. 

2. Safeguarding Client Confidentiality
- **Relevance to CPRA**: Canon III, Section 20 of the CPRA mandates that lawyers "shall preserve the secrets of their clients" and avoid disclosures that could harm them. The ABA’s guidance on evaluating AI tools for confidentiality risks is directly applicable, as many Filipino lawyers may use cloud-based AI tools like ChatGPT, which pose similar risks. 
- **Benefits**: 
  - **Risk Mitigation**: By adopting the ABA’s recommendation to review AI terms of use and avoid inputting sensitive client data without consent, Filipino lawyers can prevent breaches of confidentiality, protecting their reputation and avoiding disciplinary actions. 
  - **Client Trust**: Clear policies on AI use, as suggested by the ABA, can enhance transparency with clients, fostering trust and compliance with CPRA’s requirement to act with fidelity (Canon III, Section 19). 
  - **Custom Solutions**: Filipino law firms can explore proprietary AI tools with stronger data security, as suggested by the ABA, to ensure compliance with local data protection laws like the **Data Privacy Act of 2012**. 

3. Improving Client Communication
- **Relevance to CPRA**: Canon III, Section 16 requires Filipino lawyers to keep clients informed and consult them on significant decisions. The ABA’s guidance on disclosing AI use aligns with this duty, ensuring clients are aware of how their cases are handled. 
- **Benefits**: 
  - **Transparency**: By discussing AI use with clients, Filipino lawyers can build stronger relationships, especially with tech-savvy clients who value innovation. 
  - **Fee Clarity**: The ABA’s fee guidelines encourage clear communication about costs, which aligns with CPRA’s prohibition on unconscionable fees (Canon III, Section 25). This can prevent disputes over billing, a common issue in the Philippines. 
  - **Tailored Representation**: Consulting clients about AI use allows Filipino lawyers to customize their approach, ensuring alignment with client preferences and needs. 

4. Ensuring Accuracy and Ethical Advocacy
- **Relevance to CPRA**: Canon IV, Section 29 of the CPRA requires lawyers to uphold candor and fairness before courts, avoiding false or misleading statements. The ABA’s emphasis on verifying AI outputs to prevent "hallucinations" is critical, as Filipino courts, like their U.S. counterparts, may sanction lawyers for submitting inaccurate AI-generated filings. 
- **Benefits**: 
  - **Risk Reduction**: By adopting the ABA’s practice of rigorously reviewing AI outputs, Filipino lawyers can avoid errors that could lead to sanctions or reputational damage, especially in high-stakes litigation. 
  - **Court Compliance**: While Philippine courts may not yet have specific AI disclosure rules, adopting the ABA’s proactive approach prepares Filipino lawyers for potential future regulations, enhancing their credibility with judges. 
  - **Quality Advocacy**: Verifying AI-generated content ensures that Filipino lawyers maintain high standards of legal analysis, aligning with the CPRA’s call for excellence (Canon II, Section 2). 

5. Establishing Firm-Wide AI Policies
- **Relevance to CPRA**: Canon V, Section 34 requires supervising lawyers to ensure compliance with ethical standards by subordinates. The ABA’s guidance on firm-wide AI policies and training is a practical model for Filipino law firms, especially those integrating AI into their practice. 
- **Benefits**: 
  - **Standardized Practices**: Filipino firms can develop AI governance programs, as recommended by the ABA, to ensure consistent and ethical use across teams, reducing risks of misuse by junior lawyers or staff. 
  - **Training Opportunities**: Implementing AI training, as suggested by the ABA, can upskill Filipino lawyers and paralegals, fostering a culture of technological competence and innovation. 
  - **Scalability**: For small firms or solo practitioners in the Philippines, clear AI policies can streamline adoption, making it easier to integrate tools without compromising ethics. 

6. Ethical Fee Structures
- **Relevance to CPRA**: Canon III, Section 25 prohibits Filipino lawyers from charging unconscionable fees, and Section 24 requires clear fee agreements. The ABA’s guidance on AI-related billing aligns with these principles, ensuring fairness in client billing. 
- **Benefits**: 
  - **Cost Savings for Clients**: By passing on AI-driven efficiency gains, Filipino lawyers can offer competitive pricing, attracting more clients in a price-sensitive market. 
  - **Transparency in Billing**: Adopting the ABA’s approach to explaining AI-related costs in fee agreements enhances compliance with CPRA and builds client confidence. 
  - **Sustainability**: For solo practitioners or small firms, treating AI costs as overhead (per ABA guidance) can reduce financial burdens, making AI adoption more feasible. 

---

Practical Applications for Filipino Lawyers

To leverage the ABA guidelines effectively, Filipino lawyers can take the following steps: 
1. **Invest in Training**: Attend workshops or webinars on AI in legal practice, such as those offered by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or international legal tech providers, to build competence in line with ABA and CPRA standards. 
2. **Develop AI Policies**: Solo practitioners and firms should create written policies on AI use, covering confidentiality, verification, and client communication, adapting ABA recommendations to the Philippine context. 
3. **Use Secure AI Tools**: Opt for legal-specific AI platforms (e.g., Lexis+ AI) with robust data security, and review terms of use to comply with the Data Privacy Act and CPRA confidentiality rules. 
4. **Engage Clients**: Discuss AI use in engagement letters and consultations, ensuring transparency and informed consent, as required by both ABA and CPRA. 
5. **Monitor Court Rules**: Stay updated on any Philippine court rules or judicial pronouncements on AI use, using the ABA’s proactive disclosure approach as a guide. 
6. **Collaborate Globally**: Filipino lawyers working with international clients or firms can align their AI practices with ABA standards to meet global expectations, enhancing their marketability. 

---

Challenges and Considerations

While the ABA guidelines are beneficial, Filipino lawyers should consider: 
- **Resource Constraints**: Small firms or solo practitioners may lack access to proprietary AI tools, relying on open-source platforms like ChatGPT, which pose higher confidentiality risks. The ABA’s emphasis on reviewing terms of use is critical here. 
- **Regulatory Gaps**: The Philippines may not yet have specific AI guidelines for lawyers, unlike the ABA or California State Bar. Filipino lawyers can use the ABA framework as a proactive standard until local guidance emerges. 
- **Cultural Context**: Client expectations in the Philippines may differ, requiring tailored communication about AI use to avoid mistrust, especially among less tech-savvy clients. 
- **Bias and Accuracy**: AI tools trained on foreign datasets may not fully align with Philippine law or cultural nuances. The ABA’s call for verification is crucial to ensure outputs are relevant to local jurisprudence. 

---

Conclusion

The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 provides a comprehensive roadmap for the ethical use of generative AI and LLMs, emphasizing competence, confidentiality, communication, candor, supervision, and fair fees. For Filipino lawyers, these guidelines offer a blueprint to enhance efficiency, maintain ethical standards, and compete in a technology-driven legal landscape. By aligning with these principles, Filipino lawyers can comply with the CPRA, protect client interests, and leverage AI to improve access to justice and professional competitiveness. Adopting the ABA’s proactive approach—through training, policies, and careful tool selection—will position Filipino lawyers to navigate the opportunities and risks of AI responsibly, ensuring they uphold the highest standards of legal practice in the Philippines and beyond.

**Sources**: 
- ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, July 29, 2024  [](https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/07/aba-issues-first-ethics-guidance-ai-tools/)[](https://www.fmglaw.com/professional-liability/aba-issues-formal-guidance-for-lawyers-use-of-generative-ai/)[](https://natlawreview.com/article/american-bar-association-issues-formal-opinion-use-generative-ai-tools)
- Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (Philippines), 2023 
- Additional insights from web sources on ABA guidance and AI ethics[](https://www.debevoisedatablog.com/2024/08/05/guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-tools-by-professionals-from-the-american-bar-association/)[](https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/ai-and-attorney-ethics-rules-50-state-survey/)[](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-october/aba-ethics-opinion-generative-ai-offers-useful-framework/)"

Generated by
Grok AI app built by xAI, June 2, 2025 ,upon request of Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr.