In a recent development, a committee within the California State Bar is advocating for state lawmakers to explore regulations concerning the use of AI legal products by non-lawyers. The recommendations, expected to be considered by the California Bar’s board of trustees this week, emerge from the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct. The focus is primarily on applying generative AI by California lawyers, emphasizing issues such as disclosure practices and ethical billing.
Addressing the Promise and Perils of Generative AI
Generative AI has evolved to provide increasingly sophisticated legal tools, potentially enhancing access to justice by offering free or low-cost legal advice to individuals who cannot afford legal representation. However, the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct raises a critical concern: the possibility of harm if self-represented individuals rely on generative AI outputs that provide inaccurate information.
Seeking Clarity through Legislation
The committee is urging the board of trustees to collaborate with California’s legislature and supreme court to examine whether the unauthorized practice of law requires a more explicit definition. Additionally, they are considering whether legal generative AI products should be subject to licensing or regulation.
Balancing Innovation with Responsibility
While the recommendations include non-binding best practices for lawyers using generative AI, they fall short of establishing strict ethics rules. Described as an “interim step,” these guidelines offer initial guidance on the evolving technology while further rules and regulations are considered.
The suggested “practical guidelines” encourage attorneys to disclose AI in their representation to clients and propose refraining from charging hourly fees for time saved by utilizing generative AI. However, costs associated with generative AI can still be billed “in compliance with applicable law.”
Tackling Ethical Considerations and Confidentiality
The guidance also addresses the potential threats of AI to confidential information and emphasizes the importance of human oversight in checking the technology’s outputs. The committee recommends developing a one-hour minimum continuing legal education course to enhance attorneys’ understanding of generative AI further.
The Larger Context: Unauthorized Practice of Law
The unauthorized practice of law, particularly non-lawyers providing legal advice, has been a contentious issue in California. Recent legislative actions, such as Governor Gavin Newsom’s bill limiting corporate ownership of law firms, highlight the ongoing debate surrounding the boundaries of legal practice.
This issue extends beyond California, with states nationwide considering adjustments to restrictions on who can practice law. Utah, for instance, permits entities that wouldn’t traditionally practice law to register for a regulatory sandbox operating with state oversight.
Looking Ahead: Ethical Principles and Industry Response
The Florida Bar is actively working on ethical principles for generative AI, addressing critical questions such as obtaining client consent, technology supervision, and associated fees. Similarly, New York and New Jersey task forces are examining generative AI guidelines.
A recent case, Mata v. Avianca, served as a wake-up call for the legal community when two lawyers used generative AI for a court filing without verifying its accuracy, resulting in citations to non-existent cases—a phenomenon known as hallucination. This incident underscores the importance of responsible AI use within the legal profession and the need for comprehensive guidelines to navigate this evolving landscape.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.