Echoing California’s initiative in November, the Florida Bar has recently issued guidelines offering clarity to lawyers on the ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI). However, the landscape of AI regulation in the legal profession is poised for expansion, as at least six other states, including New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Kentucky, are actively examining the responsible deployment of AI by legal practitioners. The New York State Bar Association is expected to vote on its recommendations in April.
National Perspectives on AI Ethics in Legal Practice
The American Bar Association took a proactive stance in August by convening an AI task force. This task force is dedicated to assessing the impact of AI on legal practice and addressing the ethical questions that arise within the legal profession due to technological advancements.
Ethical Dilemmas and AI: Legal Ramifications for Lawyers
Legal professionals, including notable figures such as Michael Cohen, former attorney for Donald Trump, have faced potential sanctions for citing non-existent cases in court filings after utilizing AI programs like Open AI’s GPT-4 and Google’s Bard. These generative AI programs, while popular, have been found to “hallucinate” information, producing text that is convincing but inaccurate.
Judicial Scrutiny on AI Usage
Since June, federal judges have emphasized the importance of lawyers disclosing their use of artificial intelligence in matters before the court. This marks a significant shift in the transparency expected from legal professionals when employing AI tools in their practice.
Florida’s Ethical Guidelines on AI Usage
Florida’s recent ethics advisory opinion outlines specific recommendations for lawyers engaging with AI. Notably, lawyers are advised to obtain clients’ permission before disclosing any confidential information to third-party generative AI programs. This includes seeking approval before tasking AI, such as GPT-4, with drafting client briefs. However, the opinion does not mandate informed consent for AI use when confidential information is not involved, especially when an attorney employs an in-house AI platform not reliant on a third party.
California’s Pioneering Guidelines
California’s guidelines, issued concurrently with Florida’s, suggest attorneys “consider disclosure” to clients when using generative AI on their matters. Lawyers are encouraged to explain both the benefits and risks associated with AI utilization. Both states concur that attorneys should refrain from charging clients an hourly rate for time saved through AI utilization. Florida further recommends considering contingent-fee arrangements or flat-billing rates for specific services when AI enhances efficiency.
Navigating AI Ethics: A Balancing Act
Florida, in a distinctive move, bars lawyers from using AI in negotiations or other tasks requiring “a lawyer’s personal judgment and participation.” Both Florida and California underline that lawyers must review AI work product diligently, akin to how they scrutinize non-lawyer assistants like paralegals, ensuring accuracy. California additionally advises lawyers to be vigilant about potential bias within generative AI programs, emphasizing that professional judgment cannot be delegated to AI and must remain the lawyer’s responsibility at all times.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.