Blog

Much has been said about the ethical implications of using AI in the practice of law. From confidentiality concerns to the risk of hallucinations, cautious attorneys have voiced valid considerations about embracing this technology. But what's often overlooked in these discussions is an equally important question: What are the ethical implications of not using legal AI?

The Evolving Ethical Landscape

The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct serve as a template for legal ethics, becoming binding on lawyers as individual states adopt them. While these rules were drafted long before the advent of generative AI, they contain principles that are increasingly relevant to ethical technology adoption. Two rules, in particular, may compel attorneys to consider AI adoption: competence and diligence requirements.

Competence: Technology Is Part of the Equation

In 2012, the ABA added a technology competency requirement to Model Rule 1.1, requiring lawyers to keep "abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." This tech competence requirement has since been formally adopted by over 40 states, with several states, like Florida and New York, also requiring tech-specific CLE.

The ABA's July 2024 Generative AI Opinion made this requirement even clearer: "Given the fast-paced evolution of [GenAI] tools, technological competence presupposes that lawyers remain vigilant about the tools' benefits and risks." The opinion further notes that "lawyers should become aware of the [GenAI] tools relevant to their work so that they can make an informed decision, as a matter of professional judgment, whether to avail themselves of these tools or to conduct their work by other means."

This mirrors the evolution of other technologies that are now considered essential to legal practice. The ABA opinion points out that "a lawyer would have difficulty providing competent legal services in today's environment without knowing how to use email or create an electronic document."

As the use of AI–and particularly Generative AI–becomes ubiquitous in the practice of law, the threshold for tech competence will evolve in tandem. Just as basic computer literacy and email proficiency became essential competencies for attorneys, familiarity with AI tools may soon be viewed as a fundamental component of competent legal services. Staying ahead of this curve allows attorneys to meet both current and future professional obligations.

Diligence: AI Enhances Precision and Promptness

Model Rule 1.3 requires that "a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." This rule specifically emphasizes acting "with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client."

When AI tools can dramatically accelerate legal research, document review, or contract analysis, deliberately choosing slower, manual methods potentially violates this obligation of promptness. Clients who could receive answers or work product in hours instead wait days—all while their legal matters remain unresolved and billable hours accumulate.

Beyond speed, AI tools can enhance thoroughness by identifying arguments, precedents, or contractual issues a human attorney might miss. Advanced legal AI platforms can scan thousands of cases in seconds to identify relevant precedents. At a minimum, attorneys could scan their completed work through a legal AI platform to ensure they aren't inadvertently waiving important arguments by failing to raise them—a safeguard against oversight that directly serves the client's best interests.

In the area of eDiscovery, AI use has already been accepted across the legal field. Today, if a lawyer billed a client for time spent reviewing paper discovery with a highlighter and a ballpoint pen, they’d have a tough time arguing they acted diligently.

Similarly, areas of legal practice are emerging where generative AI simply makes the most sense to use. In the near future, listening to a recorded deposition and taking notes, manually researching legal issues, or picking apart contract terms one at a time–all tasks AI can do in a fraction of the time–could be signs of a lawyer who failed to take their client’s best interests into consideration.

Balancing Ethics in the AI Era

Over time, the legal profession has adapted to technological changes, advancing from typewriters to computers, from physical libraries to online legal research databases, and from in-court appearances to remote proceedings. Each transition raised initial concerns and resistance but ultimately enhanced the quality and efficiency of legal services.

AI represents the next step in this evolution. Today, the conversation about AI ethics in law has largely focused on the risks of using these tools. But as AI capabilities mature and their benefits become more apparent, the ethical calculus is shifting.

The question is evolving from "Is it ethical to use AI?" to "Is it ethical not to?"

AI Engineered for Ethical Lawyers

For attorneys ready to explore how AI can ethically enhance their practice, Vincent AI offers a secure, lawyer-focused platform that transforms legal workflows without compromising professional standards. With robust security protections and specialized tools designed for common legal tasks, attorneys can deliver faster, more thorough work while maintaining compliance with their ethical obligations.

Don’t choose between a commitment to efficiency and a commitment to ethics. Start your free trial of Vincent today and experience AI engineered for ethical lawyers.

Start Your Free Trial

Authored by

Sierra Van Allen