United States (states adopting the Model Rules) · other

ABA Model Rules: what it requires, and the records to keep

The Model Rules are the template for state lawyer ethics codes, and their duties of competence, communication, confidentiality, candor and supervision apply to any AI a lawyer uses. ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024) maps these rules onto generative AI, and courts have sanctioned lawyers who filed AI-fabricated citations.

Legal forceModel rules; binding only as adopted by each state's highest court
StatusIn force
JurisdictionUnited States (states adopting the Model Rules)
Checked21 Oct 2026

01 / What it requires

What ABA Model Rules requires

Lawyers and law firms licensed in jurisdictions that have adopted versions of the ABA Model Rules (nearly every US state).

  1. 01Rule 1.1 and Comment 8: understand the benefits and risks of AI tools used, and verify their output.
  2. 02Rule 1.4: consult clients about the means used, including AI use that affects fees or significant decisions.
  3. 03Rule 1.6(c): make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information entered into AI tools.
  4. 04Rule 3.3: make no false statements of law or fact to a tribunal, including AI-generated citations, and correct any made.
  5. 05Rule 5.1: partners and managers must have firm measures, such as AI-use policies, ensuring lawyers comply.
  6. 06Rule 5.3: supervise nonlawyer assistance, including AI vendors and tools, so conduct is compatible with the lawyer's duties.

02 / AI work

Where it touches AI work

No Model Rule names AI, but the 2012 technology amendments and Opinion 512 make clear the existing duties cover generative AI. Filing unverified AI output has led to court sanctions, such as Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

03 / Dates

The dates that matter

August 1983

ABA adopts the Model Rules of Professional Conduct

August 2012

Technology amendments: Rule 1.1 Comment 8, Rule 1.6(c), Rule 5.3 retitled

22 Jun 2023

Mata v. Avianca sanctions for AI-fabricated citations

29 Jul 2024

ABA Formal Opinion 512 applies the rules to generative AI

04 / Enforcement

Who enforces it

State supreme courts and their disciplinary bodies; sanctions range from private admonition to disbarment. Courts separately sanction filings under rules such as FRCP 11.

05 / Records

Records an organisation keeps

What an auditor or an inquiry usually asks to see. Your obligations depend on your role and your facts.

  1. 01Firm AI-use policy and approved-tool list
  2. 02Vendor confidentiality and data-use review for each AI tool
  3. 03Records of human verification of AI-drafted filings
  4. 04Client consent or disclosure records for AI use

Optional evidence · where Planisphere fits

Keep a record anyone can check

When your team meets a duty, Planisphere can seal the event it reports as a receipt.

01 · Your teamRecord the event

A disclosure shown, a review signed, a model change approved: the event your system reports.

02 · PlanisphereSeal it

The event becomes a sealed receipt, dated and attributed to whoever is signed in.

03 · AnyoneCheck it

Paste the receipt into Verify. No account or key.

A record supports your compliance evidence process. It is not a legal finding or a certification. Systems that call Planisphere's gate API can also hold or refuse an action before it runs.

SOURCES

Go back to the source

PRIMARY
Model Rules of Professional Conduct

American Bar Association

PRIMARY
ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools

American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility

CHANGE LOG

What changed, and when

21 Oct 2026

Rebuilt from primary sources; facts checked on this date.

Related: ABA Model Rules vs FRE 702 · ABA Model Rules for law AI workflows · ABA Formal Op. 512