IMPACT OF AI ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT EXPECTATIONS

Both the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) have issued  formal guidance for attorneys who choose to utilize AI in their law practice. This article provides a brief explanation to potential clients regarding the impact AI, and its interpretation by both the Washington State and American Bar Associations, may bring to bear on the traditional attorney-client relationship. Expectations and assumptions of both attorney and client are still guided by the ethical rules guiding lawyers. The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 (2024) and the WSBA’s Advisory Opinion 202505 (2025) are helpful in that they both address how existing traditional professional duties apply when lawyers or clients choose to use AI tools.

These opinions do not purport to create new duties but clarify how longstanding obligations—competence, confidentiality, communication, candor, supervision, and reasonableness of fees—apply in law practices that chooses to use AI tools. Although these opinions are directed at lawyers, consumers of legal services should be aware of the standards the legal profession should limit the reasonable expectations a client should have on their attorneys in the age of AI. 

1. Duty of Competence (ABA Model Rule 1.1; WSBA RPC 1.1)
Lawyers must understand the benefits and risks of AI tools they choose to use which include: (1) developing an understanding of tool and how it works; (2) learning the limitations of the current iterations of AI including hallucinations and data tailored by AI to generate the desired result; (3)  verifying results including all case and statutory citations or references to ensure they are real and correct.

2. Duty of Confidentiality (ABA Model Rule 1.6; WSBA RPC 1.6)
Both opinions emphasize that lawyers must protect client information when using AI and include the following guidance: (1) The attorney should avoid tools that store or reuse client data without adequate safeguards; (2) Use of enterprise‑grade or contractually confidential systems when possible; and (3) informing clients when AI tools may interact with their data. This duty  highlights the need for clear communication with clients about how their information is handled and how the client’s data may be made accessible to others using the same AI tool.

3. Duty of Communication (ABA Model Rule 1.4; WSBA RPC 1.4)
Attorneys have a duty to clients to inform clients when AI tools are used in a way that materially affects representation. This should include both the explanation of how AI used in generation of attorney work  product and the reasonable  expectations about the lawyer’s oversight of AI-generated content.  The efficiencies created by this tool are often overshadowed by inaccuracy and generation of unreliable and occasionally unusable products. 

This duty to communicate requires attorneys and clients to understand AI’s benefits and limitations within the practice of law.

4. Duty of Candor and Meritorious Claims (ABA Model Rule 3.3; WSBA RPC 3.3)
AI-generated content must be checked for accuracy. Submitting AI-generated arguments or citations without verification risks violating duties of candor and competence.

5. Duty to Supervise (ABA Model Rules 5.1 & 5.3; WSBA RPC 5.1 & 5.3)
AI tools are treated similarly to nonlawyer assistants. Lawyers must supervise their use and ensure they do not compromise ethical obligations.

6. Duty Regarding Fees (ABA Model Rule 1.5; WSBA RPC 1.5)

Although AI may make certain aspects of legal practice more efficient, its current impact may be minimal due to the caution expected of attorneys using these new tools.  AI creates efficiency, but it remains to be seen whether it will create more economical legal services. Ideally, AI may become a key component of a legal system badly in need of more “access to justice.” The use of the AI tools currently available will not generate cost savings until such time as AI is developed that is hallucination free and creates a product imbued with an immense amount of data as well as the legal judgment that currently comes only with experience.

The use of consumer facing AI to “check” attorney work product may seem prudent but can result in conflicts between clients and attorneys regarding decisions and choices in a particular case. Obviously this has a direct impact on fees.  Although AI generated content may look impressive and sound reasonable, the prevalent hallucinations associated with the current AI tools make this type of second-guessing sometimes counter-productive and often detrimental to the attorney- client relationship.