Does ABA Formal Opinion 512 require client consent before a lawyer uses generative AI?

Only when the tool is self-learning — that is, when the tool takes in the inputs and uses them to train the underlying model, retains them for later retrieval, or otherwise makes them reachable by another user. If the tool is self-learning and the lawyer is inputting information related to a client representation, the opinion requires informed client consent before the input. If the tool is configured so inputs are not retained and not used for training, 512 itself does not require consent, though state overlays may impose stricter rules.

Is boilerplate engagement-letter language enough to satisfy 512 informed consent?

No. The opinion explicitly states that boilerplate engagement-letter provisions do not satisfy the informed-consent standard. Informed consent must communicate, at minimum, the specific tool, the categories of client information to be input, the material risks if that information escaped, the benefit to the client, and the lawyer’s best judgment on the trade-off.

Can a lawyer bill a client for hours an AI tool saved?

No. An hourly lawyer may bill only for time actually worked — including prompt drafting, verification, and editing — but may not bill for hours the AI compressed out of the task. A flat fee may be unreasonable under Rule 1.5 if it was set on a pre-AI time estimate and the tool materially reduced the lawyer’s time. AI subscription costs are passed through as direct costs without markup.

What does the opinion say about supervising an AI tool?

The opinion treats a generative AI tool as a nonlawyer assistant under Model Rule 5.3. Every supervisory obligation that applies to a paralegal or an outsourced vendor applies, unmodified, to the AI. Partners and managing partners have an affirmative duty under Rule 5.1 to create and enforce a written firm policy covering approved tools, prohibited data classes, and verification requirements.

Does 512 require the lawyer to disclose AI use to the court?

No. The ABA opinion does not impose a standalone disclosure duty to the tribunal. Local standing orders in specific U.S. district courts have begun to require AI-use disclosures; check your forum.

Which states have diverged from ABA Formal Opinion 512?

California guidance (Nov 2023) is stricter on configuration — it bars inputting confidential client information into a tool whose security and confidentiality protections are inadequate, even with consent. NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5 is more permissive — it does not require client consent before self-learning GAI use, diverging from 512 on that point. Texas Opinion 705 (Feb 2025) focuses on verification and Rule 11 compliance. Florida Opinion 24-1 (Jan 2024) is the most business-friendly of the major state opinions. Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 requires client education and informed consent when the benefits outweigh the risks.

a series from Judy · five weekly letters · Apr 20 — May 19, 2026

Letters on 512.

Five letters on ABA Formal Opinion 512 — the ethics opinion on generative AI in law. Tuesdays through May 19.

Letter I · Rule 1.1

April 20, 2026 · 10 min read

Competence, two years in

What does it mean to be competent at a tool you cannot audit? The quiet radicalism of Rule 1.1 when the nonlawyer in the room does not know it is one.

Read the letter

Coming Tuesday · Apr 28

April 28, 2026 · 13 min read

Letter II · Confidentiality and the self-learning trap

The bright line 512 quietly drew between two kinds of AI tool — what the ChatGPT Plus subscription on your laptop is doing with a client matter, why the engagement-letter paragraph fails the consent test, and the three-minute conversation that replaces it.

Coming Tuesday · May 5

May 5, 2026 · 12 min read

Letter III · Fees, and the four-document file

Why you cannot bill for the hour the AI saved, what the malpractice carrier will ask to see at renewal, and the four-document compliance stack — a one-page AI policy, a modified engagement letter, a client security explainer, a verification log — that answers both questions.

Coming Tuesday · May 12

May 12, 2026 · 12 min read

Letter IV · Supervision, and the three conversations

Rule 5.3 turns the tool into staff; the six-figure sanctions era has arrived to enforce it. Plus the three conversations — intake, annual review, post-near-miss — that do the supervising the documents only record.

Coming Tuesday · May 19

May 19, 2026 · 11 min read

Letter V · Duties to the tribunal: the state overlays and where the ground is moving

Where do you actually have to tell the court — and what is coming next? The last letter closes the circle: state overlays, standing orders, malpractice carriers, and a final word from me.

— Judy