Generative AI in the Practice of Law
Lawyers' duty of competence now includes a component not widely discussed until recently—the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the practice…
September 23, 2024 at 02:00 PM
8 minute read
Lawyers' duty of competence now includes a component not widely discussed until recently—the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the practice of law. The New York City Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics (the Committee), recently issued Formal Opinion 2024-5 to give explicit guidance to New York lawyers on the ethical implications of using AI tools in the context of their law practice. Although the opinion is quite short, we summarize it here in order to highlight both its existence, and the central elements of its guidance. Readers interested in reviewing the whole Opinion, which is extensively footnoted, may find it at the following link: https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2024-5-generative-ai-in-the-practice-of-law/.
The Opinion identifies and explains the ways in which the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (the RPCs) apply to the use of AI in law practice. In particular, the Opinion addresses the application of RPCs governing the duties of confidentiality (Rule 1.6), competence and diligence (Rules 1.1 and 1.3), to avoid conflicts of interest (Rules 1.7-1.12), to comply with the law (Rule 8.4), of supervision—both the duty of supervisors and subordinate lawyers and staff (Rules 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3), to consult with clients (Rules 1.2 and 1.4), candor to tribunals (Rule 3.1), as well as the prohibition on making non-meritorious claims and contentions, the limitations on what a lawyer may charge for fees and costs (Rule 1.5), and the prohibition on discrimination (Rule 8.4), when lawyers use AI tools.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllArtificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
9 minute readAI and Social Media Fakes: Are You Protecting Your Brand?
Trending Stories
- 1In Novel Oil and Gas Feud, 5th Circuit Gives Choice of Arbitration Venue
- 2Jury Seated in Glynn County Trial of Ex-Prosecutor Accused of Shielding Ahmaud Arbery's Killers
- 3Ex-Archegos CFO Gets 8-Year Prison Sentence for Fraud Scheme
- 4Judges Split Over Whether Indigent Prisoners Bringing Suit Must Each Pay Filing Fee
- 5Law Firms Report Wide Growth, Successful Billing Rate Increases and Less Merger Interest
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250