As lawyers increasingly incorporate generative AI into everyday practice, bar associations around the world are considering the same question: how do longstanding professional and ethics rules that have governed the practice of law for hundreds of years, apply when legal work is assisted by AI?
A recent memorandum from the Ethics Committee of the Israel Bar Association offers a thoughtful framework.
The overarching principle is straightforward: competence, confidentiality, diligence, supervision, and professional judgment remain fully applicable when lawyers use AI. If anything, they become more important. Ultimately, the lawyer remains responsible for the work product.
Interesting specifics in the memo include:
- Use of AI Agents in legal practice
- Input of client data into LLMs
- Maintaining access controls within the firm if AI is embedded in the systems.
- When do you need to disclose use of AI to the client
- Dealing with AI hallucinations
These issues are top of mind in the US as well.
These issues are top of mind in the United States as well. According to legal researcher Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases database, courts worldwide have identified more than 2,000 cases involving AI-generated hallucinated content in legal proceedings since 2023. As a result, bar associations across the United States have increasingly emphasized that attorneys remain responsible for AI-assisted work product and must independently verify AI-generated legal and factual assertions before relying on them.
Importantly, the California Legislature recently passed SB 574, which has been sent to Governor Newsom for consideration. If enacted, the bill would provide that an attorney “shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence,” although neither “delegate” nor “practice of law” is expressly defined in the legislation. At the same time, the bill expressly permits attorneys to use generative AI to assist in the practice of law, provided they take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content and correct erroneous or hallucinated outputs.
I was honored to have the opportunity to provide input on the memorandum from a U.S. legal and regulatory perspective. Although the memorandum is directed to Israeli attorneys, the questions it addresses and the ethics principles it cites are the same ones that lawyers in the United States are addressing: what information can be shared with AI tools, when clients should be informed of AI use, how AI-generated work should be supervised, particularly as agentic AI become more prevalent, and where responsibility ultimately lies when technology gets it wrong.
US Sources:
- CA SB 574
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 29, 2024)
- The State Bar of California’s Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct (COPRAC) Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (2023; amended 2026)
- Florida Bar Opinion 24-1 (Generative AI)
- State Bar of Texas: Professional Ethics Opinion 705
- North Carolina Bar: 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1