Regulation explainerLegal Services

Generative AI and lawyers' conduct rules: what each duty requires of a firm

Generative AI does not get its own rulebook in legal practice: the existing duties of competence, confidentiality, client communication, supervision, reasonable fees and candour to the court already govern it. This page maps those duties for the US and for England and Wales, explains what the fabricated-citation cases decided, and turns each obligation into a control a firm can run.

Reviewed 10 October 2026 8 min read

On this page

Why generative AI use is a conduct question, not only an IT question
Instruments and decisions that set the conduct baseline
Six duties side by side, with the control that answers each
What the fabricated-citation cases actually decided
Controls that turn the duties into daily practice
A hypothetical mid-sized firm rolls out a drafting assistant
Questions and answers
Sources

Why generative AI use is a conduct question, not only an IT question

Most firms first meet generative AI as a procurement or security decision: which tool, which vendor terms, which data may go in. Regulators frame it differently. The lawyer who relies on a model's output owns that output, and the partner who supervises the lawyer owns the system of supervision. A tool approved by IT shifts neither responsibility.

In England and Wales, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has said that firms and solicitors remain responsible for AI outputs and cannot hand that responsibility to an IT team or an external provider³. In the US, the American Bar Association's ethics committee reached the same position by walking through the Model Rules one at a time¹. The practical consequence is that a generative AI rollout needs a conduct owner, usually the risk or general counsel function, alongside the technology owner.

Instruments and decisions that set the conduct baseline

Model rules and regulator codes state the duties; ethics opinions, regulator reports and judgments show how they apply to generative AI.

ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools[^1]

United States (guidance on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct)

Applies whenA lawyer uses a generative AI tool in client work; the opinion was issued on July 29, 2024 and interprets the Model Rules, which states adopt in their own form¹.

Competence under Model Rule 1.1 includes a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limits of the specific tool used¹.
Informed client consent is needed before information relating to the representation goes into a self-learning tool, and boilerplate in an engagement letter is not enough¹.
Fees under Model Rule 1.5 must be reasonable; hourly billing covers time actually spent, not time the tool saved¹.

SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs

England and Wales

Applies whenA solicitor or other regulated individual provides legal services, whatever tools are used².

Do not mislead the court or others, including by allowing the acts or omissions of others (paragraph 1.4)².
Put forward only properly arguable submissions and draw the court's attention to relevant cases (paragraphs 2.4 and 2.7)².
Provide a competent service, keep skills up to date and remain accountable for work done by those you supervise (paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5)².

SRA Risk Outlook report: The use of artificial intelligence in the legal market

England and Wales (regulator guidance, November 2023)[^3]

Applies whenA regulated firm adopts or permits AI tools in its practice³.

Check outputs for accuracy, because language models can produce highly plausible but incorrect results³.
Supervise AI systems and staff use of them, and decide what to tell clients about AI use on their matters³.

Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC), Opinion and Order on Sanctions[^4]

US District Court for the Southern District of New York (June 22, 2023)[^4]

Applies whenA filing cites authorities generated by an AI tool without verification⁴.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives attorneys a gatekeeping role over the accuracy of filings⁴.
The court sanctioned the individual lawyers and held the firm jointly responsible⁴.

R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)[^5]

England and Wales, Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division

Applies whenFalse citations, possibly AI-generated, are placed before a court⁵.

Lawyers must check AI-assisted research against authoritative sources before relying on it⁵.
Those with leadership responsibilities, such as managing partners and heads of chambers, must take practical and effective measures so that everyone providing legal services understands their obligations when using AI⁵.

Six duties side by side, with the control that answers each

Read across a row to see the US source, the England and Wales source and the firm control that addresses both.

Duty	US (ABA Model Rules)	England and Wales (SRA Code)	Control a firm can run
Competence	Rule 1.1: understand the tool's capabilities and limits¹	Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3: competent service, skills kept current²	Tool-specific training before access, refreshed when the tool changes
Confidentiality	Rule 1.6: informed consent before input to self-learning tools¹	Paragraph 6.3: keep client affairs confidential²	Approved tools only, no-training vendor terms, matter-scoped access
Client communication	Rule 1.4: disclose AI use where it matters to the client's decisions¹	Paragraph 8.6: information clients can understand²	A firm position on what clients are told, in engagement terms
Supervision	Rules 5.1 and 5.3: policies, training, vendor diligence¹	Paragraph 3.5: accountable for supervised work²	Named supervisor per tool, usage logs reviewed, escalation route
Fees	Rule 1.5: reasonable fees; bill actual time¹	Paragraph 8.7: best possible information on pricing²	Written billing policy for AI-assisted work and tool costs
Candour to the court	Rules 3.1 and 3.3: verify authorities before filing¹	Paragraphs 1.4, 2.4 and 2.7: do not mislead; properly arguable²	Mandatory citation check against an authoritative source before filing

References point to the model texts; US state rules and the SRA's other codes add to or vary these duties.

What the fabricated-citation cases actually decided

In Mata v. Avianca, the court said that using a reliable AI tool for assistance is not inherently improper; the failure was submitting non-existent opinions with fake quotations created by ChatGPT and standing by them after the court questioned them⁴. The court found bad faith and ordered letters to the client and to each judge falsely named as an author⁴. The lesson for firm design: the verification failure was compounded by a failure to escalate and correct.

The Divisional Court in Ayinde said AI tools are not capable of reliable legal research, named the authoritative sources output must be checked against, and warned of regulatory referral, wasted costs orders and, where the threshold is met, contempt⁵. It added that guidance alone is not enough and that it expects to ask whether leaders took effective measures⁵. Judicial guidance published in October 2025 likewise expands on hallucination risk⁶, so expect courts to ask how AI-assisted material was checked.

Controls that turn the duties into daily practice

Each item answers at least one duty in the table above. Tick them off for each tool, not once for the whole firm.

0 of 8 checked

An approved-tools registerLists each permitted tool, its permitted uses, the data classes allowed in it and its named supervisor.
Vendor terms reviewed for training, retention and sub-processorsConfirm in contract that client data is not used to train models and is deleted on a defined schedule.
Matter-level access and information barriers inheritedThe tool sees only documents the user could open in the document management system
A citation-verification step before anything is filedEvery authority checked against an official or reputable source by a named person, recorded on the file.
Prompt and output logging tied to the matter numberSupports supervision, complaint handling and any later inquiry by a court or regulator.
Tool-specific training with a short competence checkCovers limits, known failure modes and the firm's checking rules
A written client-communication positionWhen AI use is disclosed, when consent is sought and how engagement terms describe it.
A billing policy for AI-assisted workHow time is recorded, whether tool costs are overhead or charged, and how fixed fees are set.

A hypothetical mid-sized firm rolls out a drafting assistant

Hypothetical example

Policy first, then the tool

For example, a mid-sized commercial firm might plan to give its corporate and employment teams a drafting assistant. Before any fee earner has access, the general counsel's office writes a one-page conduct position: the tool may draft and summarise but not produce authorities for court documents without a separate check; client data may go in only because the vendor contract excludes training; and engagement letters for new matters describe the tool in plain terms.

IT configures single sign-on, matter-scoped access and logging, and each supervising partner signs off training for their team. A month in, the risk partner samples the logs, finds outputs that reached clients without a recorded review, and changes the workflow so a draft cannot be exported until a reviewer is named.

Questions and answers

Do we have to tell clients that we use generative AI on their matters?

Not always. The ABA opinion links disclosure to the circumstances: when a client asks, when the tool's use affects decisions the client must make, or when client information goes into a self-learning tool, which needs informed consent. The SRA's AI report says firms must decide what they tell clients about AI use. Many firms settle this in engagement terms and add matter-specific consent where data handling changes.

Can a firm charge clients for the cost of an AI tool?

It depends on how the cost is treated. The ABA opinion distinguishes general overhead, which is usually absorbed, from costs tied to a specific matter, and says lawyers should not bill for time spent learning a tool they will use generally. In England and Wales, the SRA Code requires the best possible information about pricing. Write a billing policy before rollout so fee earners are not deciding case by case.

Who in a firm is responsible if an associate files a fabricated citation?

The associate who filed it, first. The Divisional Court in Ayinde also said that managing partners and others with leadership responsibility must take practical measures so everyone understands their obligations, and that it would ask whether they had. The court referred the supervising solicitor in that case to the SRA. In the US, Mata held the firm jointly responsible for the sanction. Supervision arrangements are therefore part of the exposure.

Sources

Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools — American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility · checked 10 October 2026
SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs — Solicitors Regulation Authority · checked 10 October 2026
Risk Outlook report: The use of artificial intelligence in the legal market — Solicitors Regulation Authority · checked 10 October 2026
Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (PKC), Opinion and Order on Sanctions (ECF 54) — US District Court for the Southern District of New York, via CourtListener RECAP · checked 10 October 2026
Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) — The National Archives, Find Case Law · checked 10 October 2026
Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Judicial Guidance (October 2025) — Courts and Tribunals Judiciary · checked 10 October 2026

More in Legal Services

Back to Legal Services

Next step

Map your firm's AI tools against these conduct duties

Send the list of AI tools your lawyers use or want to use, with your current policy if you have one. We will come back with the controls each tool still needs, for your risk partner and IT team to work through together.

Share your AI tool list