Can an Alaska lawyer use generative AI tools like ChatGPT in a law practice, and what ethics rules apply?

Plain-English summary

The opinion answers six questions about generative AI ("GAI") and resolves each by applying existing Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct rather than any new rule. A lawyer may use GAI to assist a client, but the opinion conditions that use on the lawyer first understanding, to a reasonable degree, how the tool works, its limitations, and whether it can safeguard client confidences and secrets (ARPC 1.1, 1.3). The lawyer has a duty to review GAI output for errors and adequacy, because the duty of competence is "ongoing and not delegable."

On confidentiality, the opinion concludes that whether a lawyer may input client confidences or secrets into a GAI tool "depends." Before doing so, the lawyer must review the tool's policies on data retention, data sharing, and self-learning; if those inputs are not protected, the lawyer must anonymize them or obtain the client's informed consent (ARPC 1.6). On fees, a lawyer may bill a client for GAI costs only after disclosing the client's liability and the basis for the charges, and must not duplicate charges or bill for time saved by GAI (ARPC 1.5).

The opinion also applies the supervisory rules: partners and managers may need GAI policies and procedures, and a lawyer who supervises others using GAI must understand the tool well enough to oversee that use (ARPC 5.1, 5.3). Finally, the opinion ties GAI "hallucinations" to the misconduct and candor rules: a lawyer must confirm that GAI-generated information, including citations, is true before relying on it, noting that courts in other jurisdictions have sanctioned lawyers who filed fake AI-generated citations (ARPC 8.4(c), 3.3, 3.1).

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer's use of generative AI is permitted when the lawyer treats the tool the way the existing rules treat any other technology or nonlawyer assistance: learn its capabilities and limits, verify its work product, protect client information, and disclose costs. The opinion frames the duty to communicate about GAI use as fact-specific, turning on the client's expectations, the scope of the representation, and the sensitivity of the information involved; where unprompted disclosure is advisable, the opinion identifies the engagement letter as the logical place to make it.

The opinion is explicit that it is not an exhaustive list of GAI issues and that the analysis may change as the technology and the rules evolve.

Common questions

Q: Can an Alaska lawyer use ChatGPT or other generative AI to help with client work?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes it is permissible, but the lawyer must first understand, to a reasonable degree, how the tool works, its limitations, and whether it protects client confidences and secrets (ARPC 1.1).

Q: Does a lawyer have to check AI-generated work?

A: Yes. The opinion states the lawyer has a duty to review GAI output for errors and adequacy and must verify the accuracy of legal citations, because uncritical reliance can produce inaccurate advice or misrepresentations to a court (ARPC 1.3, 3.3, 8.4(c)).

Q: Can a lawyer put confidential client information into an AI tool?

A: It depends. The opinion says the lawyer must first review the tool's data-retention, data-sharing, and self-learning policies; if confidences are not protected, the lawyer must anonymize the inputs or obtain the client's informed consent (ARPC 1.6).

Q: Can a lawyer bill a client for using AI, or for time the AI saved?

A: A lawyer may pass on GAI costs only after disclosing the client's liability and the basis for the charges, and may not duplicate charges or bill for time the lawyer did not work; fees must stay reasonable and proportionate to the actual work performed (ARPC 1.5).

Q: What happens if AI invents a fake case citation?

A: The opinion warns that GAI can "hallucinate" entire court decisions and that lawyers must confirm AI-generated information is true before relying on it; it notes courts in other jurisdictions have sanctioned or suspended lawyers who filed fake AI citations (ARPC 3.3, 8.4(c)).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (ARPC), Alaska's adoption of the ABA Model Rules. It expressly lists Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.2 (scope), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.6 (confidential or secret client information), 3.1 (meritorious claims), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 4.1 (truthfulness to others), 5.1 (responsibilities of partners and supervisory lawyers), 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance), and 8.4 (misconduct). The opinion grounds much of its analysis in the competence comment's instruction that a lawyer "should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology," and treats GAI as the latest technology to which that duty applies.

The opinion repeatedly draws on the Bar's earlier cloud-computing opinion (Alaska Ethics Op. 2014-3) and on ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024), which it follows on confidentiality, fees, and supervision.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.1 / ARPC 1.1 (competence, including technological competence)
• Model Rule 1.6 / ARPC 1.6 (confidentiality of client information)
• Model Rule 1.5 / ARPC 1.5 (reasonable fees and cost disclosure)
• Model Rules 5.1, 5.3 / ARPC 5.1, 5.3 (supervisory responsibilities)
• Model Rules 3.3, 8.4 / ARPC 3.3, 8.4 (candor and misconduct)

Cases:

• Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 WL 4114965 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023), sanctions for fake AI-generated citations
• People v. Crabill, No. 23PDJ067, 2023 WL 8111898 (Colo. O.P.D.J. Nov. 22, 2023), discipline for AI-generated citations

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Op. 512 (2024): generative AI tools
• ABA Formal Op. 93-379 (1993): billing for costs and expenses
• Alaska Ethics Op. 2014-3: cloud computing and the practice of law
• Alaska Ethics Op. 95-4: charges to clients for disbursements and expenses

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 512: Generative AI Tools
• TX Ethics Op. 705: Generative AI in the Practice of Law
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 24-1: Generative AI in Practice
• NYC Bar Op. 2024-5: Generative AI in NY Law Practice
• PA Joint Formal Op. 2024-200: Artificial Intelligence

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
ETHICS OPINION 2025-1
Generative Artificial Intelligence & The Practice of Law Issue
What rules of professional conduct govern or should inform the use of
generative artificial intelligence (“GAI”) in the practice of law?
Questions Presented & Short Answers
1. Is it ethically permissible for a lawyer to use GAI to assist a client?
Yes, but before doing so, the lawyer should understand, to a reasonable
degree, how the technology works, its limitations, and its ability (or not) to
safeguard client confidences and secrets.
2. Does a lawyer using GAI have an ethical duty to review the GAI output
to ensure it is free from errors and, if applicable, sufficiently advocates
for a client’s interests?
Yes.
3. Is it ethically permissible for a lawyer to input client confidences or
secrets into an GAI tool?
It depends. Before doing so, the lawyer must review the program’s policies
on data retention, data sharing, and self-learning from user inputs to
ensure that the GAI tool will protect client confidences and secrets. If client
confidences and secrets are not protected by the GAI tool, then the lawyer
must anonymize their inputs to protect client details.
4. Can a lawyer bill a client for the cost of using GAI?
Yes, but to do so, within a reasonable time after beginning the
representation, the lawyer must explicitly disclose to the client (a) the
client’s liability for the charges; and (b) the basis on which the charges will
be computed.
5. If using GAI reduces the time it takes a lawyer to perform legal work,
does that need to be reflected in the fees the lawyer charges to their
client?
Yes, lawyers must ensure that their fees remain reasonable and
proportionate to the actual work performed. The lawyer may not duplicate
fees for work done by GAI or bill clients for time that the lawyer did not
work.
1

6. Does a lawyer who serves as a partner or manager of a firm that uses
   GAI, or a lawyer who supervises other lawyers or nonlawyers who use
   GAI, have an ethical responsibility to ensure that the use of GAI is
   compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations?
   Yes.
   Introduction
   Artificial intelligence is the ability of computer systems to perform tasks that
   usually require human intelligence, like interpreting and drafting language,
   answering questions, making decisions, and learning from data inputs. This
   opinion focuses on a particular form of artificial intelligence—generative AI—
   which can create content and is relatively new and different from basic AI that
   lawyers have already been using for years. Among many other abilities, GAIpowered software can quickly perform legal research, draft pleadings, analyze
   contracts, and review and summarize documents, and it has the potential to
   greatly increase a lawyer’s efficiency.
   This opinion discusses some of the ethical issues that lawyers should consider
   when deciding when and how to use GAI in the practice of law. Like any
   technology, a lawyer’s use of GAI must align with their professional responsibility
   obligations. How these obligations apply to the use of GAI may depend on many
   factors, including the client, matter, practice area, firm size, and the tools
   themselves, ranging from free and readily available to custom-built, proprietary
   tools. GAI is rapidly evolving, and this opinion does not address every ethical
   issue that may arise when using GAI in legal practice, now or in the future.
   Instead, it provides a starting point that discusses foundational rules and
   applicable ethical principles that should guide each lawyer’s use of GAI in a
   professional capacity.1

1 Other jurisdictions that have evaluated the issues posed by GAI under their

corresponding ethical rules, have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Tex.
Ethics Op. 705 (2025); N.C. Ethics Op. 2024-1 (2024); Mo. Informal Op. 202411 (2024); D.C. Ethics Op. 388 (2024); Ky. Ethics Op. E-457 (2024); ABA Comm.
on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 512 (2024) (hereinafter “ABA AI
Opinion”); Fla. Ethics Op. 24-1 (2024); N.J. State Bar Ass’n, Task Force on
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Law, Report, Requests, Recommendations, and
Findings (2024); N.Y. State Bar Ass’n, Report & Recommendations of the Task
Force on Artificial Intelligence (2024); Pa. State Bar & Philadelphia Bar Joint
Formal Op. 2024-200 (2024); N.Y. City Bar Formal Op. 2024-5 (2024); W. Va.
Ethics Op. 24-01 (2024); State Bar of Cal., Standing Comm. on Prof’l Resp. &
Conduct, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in
the Practice of Law (Nov. 16. 2023); State Bar of Mich., JI-155 (Oct. 27, 2023).
2

Applicable Rules & Analysis
Numerous provisions of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (“ARPC”)
govern or should inform the use of GAI in the practice of law. This includes, but
is not limited to, Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.3, and 8.4.

ARPC 1.1—Competence; ARPC 1.3—Diligence.
To “maintain[] competence” in the practice of law, “a lawyer should keep abreast
of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated
with relevant technology.” APRC 1.1 cmt. Throughout its history, the legal
profession has incorporated countless new technologies.2 Some of these are now
so critical to the profession—e.g., email and word processing—that a lawyer
likely cannot be competent unless they use those technologies. Lawyers should
continually educate themselves on the evolving nature of GAI so they can
exercise sound professional judgment as to whether adopting or regularly using
GAI is or becomes “reasonably necessary” to represent their clients’ interests.
ARPC 1.1. The duty of “competence [is] ongoing and not delegable.”3 Before
incorporating any GAI tool into the practice of law and throughout its use,
lawyers must educate themselves about its capabilities and limitations, and its
terms of use and other policies, to ensure that their use of it complies with the
other ARPCs discussed below.
This dovetails with the requirement that lawyers “act with reasonable diligence”
in representing clients. ARPC 1.3. To do so with respect to GAI use, lawyers must
exercise sound, independent judgment and critically examine and improve GAI
outputs to best support their client’s interests and priorities. The scope of such
review depends on the tool used and the task performed, and may include review
to ensure the accuracy of legal citations, as discussed below. A lawyer’s
uncritical reliance on GAI tools can result in inaccurate legal advice to a client
or misleading representations to a court or a third party that do not comport
with the lawyer’s ethical duties. See ARPCs 3.3 and 4.1.
Lawyers should also confirm whether and when any court rules or orders require
them to disclose the use of GAI, as a lawyer’s representation cannot be competent
or diligent if it does not comply with such authorities.

2 See, e.g., Alaska Ethics Op. 2014-3, Cloud Computing and the Practice of

Law; Alaska Ethics Op. 98-2, Communication by Electronic Mail.
3 Alaska Ethics Op. 2014-3, Cloud Computing and the Practice of Law at 1.

3

ARPC 1.2—Scope of Representation; ARPC 1.4—Communication.
“[A] lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of
representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they
are to be pursued,” which may include the use of GAI. APRC 1.2 (emphasis
added). Likewise, lawyers must “reasonably consult with th[eir] client[s] about
the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives,” which also may
include the use of GAI. ARPC 1.4 cmt. “In some situations—depending on both
the importance of the action under consideration and the feasibility of consulting
with the client—this duty will require consultation prior to taking action”—that
is, before using GAI to assist with the representation. Id.
The facts of each case shape the duty to communicate with a client about the
use of GAI. Of course, if a client asks, a lawyer should candidly disclose the
extent to which they used GAI to conduct their work, as the rules requires
lawyers to “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” ARPC
1.4(a). The more difficult question is when unprompted disclosure is required.
Many lawyers already routinely use GAI to provide legal services—for example,
through legal databases like Lexis or Westlaw—and the use of these tools may
be foreseeable and expected by clients. But in other instances, where GAI is used
in a novel fashion, especially to perform substantive work, there may be a greater
need for communication. To determine whether a lawyer should communicate
their use of GAI to a client, the Committee recommends that the lawyer consider
“the client’s needs and expectations regarding the representation, the scope of
representation, and the sensitivity of the case information that would be shared
with the GAI tool.”4
Several common scenarios illustrate when a lawyer should proactively disclose
the use of GAI. For example, where a client is liable for the cost of using GAI—
especially if it is a “significant expense”—the lawyer should disclose that cost as
it may require a client’s input. ARPC 1.4 cmt. As another example, “there may
be situations where a client retains a lawyer based on the lawyer’s particular
skill and judgment, when the use of [GAI], without the client’s knowledge, would
violate the terms of the engagement agreement or the client’s reasonable
expectations regarding how the lawyer intends to accomplish the objectives of
the representation.”5
In sum, the duty to communicate with a client about the use of GAI depends
mainly on the assistance provided. In instances where disclosing the nature and
scope of GAI use is advisable, the engagement letter is the logical place to make
such disclosures and to tee up a discussion with the client about how they want
their lawyer to use GAI in the representation.
4 ABA AI Opinion at 9.
5 Id.

4

ARPC 1.5—Fees.
GAI may provide lawyers with faster and more efficient ways to provide legal
services to their clients, which should be reflected in the fees that lawyers charge.
When incorporating GAI into a lawyer’s practice, the lawyer must ensure that
their fees remain reasonable and proportionate to the actual work performed and
time expended. See ARPC 1.5(a).6 A lawyer cannot duplicate charges for work
done by GAI or falsely inflate billable hours for time saved by GAI. A lawyer must
also proactively communicate with their client about the basis for fees. See ARPC
1.5(b).
Questions may arise as to when a lawyer may bill a client for costs associated
with the use of an GAI tool. Lawyers use GAI tools in many ways—e.g., within a
legal search engine such as Westlaw—and the expense of some uses may be
considered simply overhead for operating a legal practice. “In the absence of
disclosure to a client in advance of the engagement to the contrary,” such
overhead should be “subsumed within the lawyer’s charges for professional
services.”7 In other circumstances, a lawyer may opt to pass on GAI costs to a
client. Before doing so and within a reasonable time after commencing the
representation, the lawyer must make explicit disclosures to the client about “(a)
the client’s liability for the charges; and (b) the basis on which the charges will
be computed.”8
To note, while the duty of competence requires every lawyer to stay abreast of
technological advances, lawyers “may not charge clients for time necessitated by
their own inexperience. Therefore, a lawyer may not charge a client to learn about
how to use [GAI] that the lawyer will regularly use for clients, unless a client

6 ARPC 1.5(a) provides the following non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in

assessing reasonableness: “(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal
service properly; (2) the likelihood, that the acceptance of the particular
employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee
customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount
involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client
or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional
relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the
lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or
contingent.”
7 ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof’l Responsibility, Formal Op. 93-379 (1993).
8 Alaska Ethics Op. 95-4, Standards Governing Charges to Clients for

Disbursements and Other Expenses.
5

requests or expressly approves such training.9 In such instances, the lawyer
should clearly communicate with the client about the cost of training and
memorialize this agreement.
ARPC 1.6—Confidential or Secret Client Information.
Lawyers must “safeguard a client’s confidences and secrets against unauthorized
access, or against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure,” including by “others
involved in transferring or storing client confidences or secrets.” ARPC 1.6(c).
This includes GAI if a lawyer inputs such confidences or secrets into a GAI
program, whether by submitting prompts or queries, uploading data or
documents, or otherwise. As with cloud computing, before using any GAI tool, “a
lawyer should determine whether the provider of the services is a reputable
organization” and “should specifically consider whether the provider offers
robust security measures,” including by reviewing the provider’s terms of use
and policies.10 Such security measures in the context of GAI include strict
prohibitions against retaining data, sharing data with third parties, and learning
from user inputs—which is called “self-learning.”
Most GAI programs “learn” by analyzing user inputs and adding those inputs to
their existing response parameters. A “self-learning” GAI tool may store user
inputs and reveal them in response to future inquiries, including inquiries by
third parties, unless the GAI tool operates on a “closed” system. Some GAI tools
keep inputted information entirely within a firm’s own protected databases,
called closed systems, which reduces the risk of sharing client confidences and
secrets through self-learning. But it does not fully eliminate this risk if a firm
has lawyers who are screened from certain matters and also use the same GAI
tool, without further safeguards. To safely use GAI that self-learns outside of a
closed system, lawyers must fully anonymize their inputs to protect client
confidences and secrets, unless a client gives informed consent otherwise.
“A client may give informed consent to forgo security measures that would
otherwise be required by this Rule.” ARPC 1.6(c). Where there is a risk that a GAI
tool may disclose inputted client confidences or secrets to a third party, a lawyer
should (i) discuss with their client the proposed use of the GAI tool, (ii) advise
their client of this risk, and (iii) obtain their client’s informed consent to use the
GAI tool, before inputting the client’s confidences or secrets.

9 ABA AI Opinion, at 14.
10 Alaska Ethics Op. 2014-3, Cloud Computing and the Practice of Law at 3

(“While a lawyer need not become an expert in [GAI], a lawyer must remain
aware of how and where data are stored and what the service agreement
says.”).
6

ARPC 5.1—Responsibilities
Lawyers.

of

Partners,

Managers,

and

Supervisory

Law firm partners and other lawyers who have “comparable managerial
authority” must “make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect
measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the
Rules of Professional Conduct.” ARPC 5.1(a). Such reasonable efforts may
include having policies and procedures related to the use of GAI. For example,
law firms may choose to prohibit the use of GAI that learns from user inputs to
reduce potential disclosure of client confidences and secrets.
The Committee does not intend to specify what GAI policies a law firm should
adopt because it is the responsibility of each law firm leader to determine how
GAI might be used in their firm and then establish a GAI policy that addresses
the benefits and risks associated with that use—and to continually reassess
these issues as technology evolves. As a part of this process, it is appropriate to
review the law firm’s existing cybersecurity policies and ensure that they take
GAI into consideration.
Relatedly, lawyers who have “direct supervisory authority” over any other lawyer
must “make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the
Rules of Professional Conduct.” ARPC 5.1(b). This requires that any lawyer who
supervises a junior lawyer who in turn uses GAI must understand enough about
GAI to provide appropriate oversight and supervision.
ARPC 5.3—Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistance.
A lawyer with direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer must make
reasonable efforts to ensure that the nonlawyer’s conduct is compatible with the
lawyer’s professional obligations. ARPC 5.3. Though ARPC 5.3(a)(1)-(3) speak in
terms of a “person” nonlawyer, many of the standards applicable to nonlawyer
assistance should also guide a lawyer’s use of GAI.
For example, a lawyer should review GAI work product in situations requiring
work product review for nonlawyer assistants like paralegals. Lawyers are
ultimately responsible for their own work product, regardless of whether it was
originally drafted or researched by a human nonlawyer or GAI. Functionally, this
means a lawyer must verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all GAI research—
including for the reasons described below with respect to GAI “hallucinations.”
Failure to do so can lead to violations of the lawyer’s duties of competence and
candor to the tribunal, among others. Likewise, lawyers should not fully delegate
to GAI anything that could constitute the practice of law and that requires a
lawyer’s judgment and participation, like negotiation on a client’s behalf or
offering legal advice.

7

The rule applies to nonlawyers both within and outside a firm. ARPC 5.3 cmt.
The fact that a GAI tool might be operated by a third-party thus does not
eliminate a lawyer’s imperative to ensure that its work product is consistent with
a lawyer’s professional obligations.
ARPC 8.4—Misconduct.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving
dishonest, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s fitness to practice law.” ARPC 8.4(c). A lawyer’s use of GAI may run afoul
of this rule to the extent a lawyer relies on and presents untrue information
provided by GAI. Among the reasons that GAI is controversial is its ability to
respond to queries with “hallucinations”—outputs that are nonsensical or
inaccurate—based in part on perceived patterns or objects that do not actually
exist or are imperceptible to humans.11 GAI has even hallucinated entire court
decisions that lawyers have then cited in court briefs. These outputs can be quite
deceptive as they appear on their face to be accurate.
Lawyers must confirm that the information GAI generates is true when relying
on it in the practice of law. This includes ensuring the accuracy and relevance
of citations used in legal documents or arguments. When citing legal authorities
such as statutes, regulations, case law, or scholarly articles, lawyers must verify
that the citations accurately reflect the content they are referencing. Lawyers
must also ensure that GAI-generated content, like legal documents or advice,
reflects sound legal reasoning.
Such efforts will also help ensure compliance with ARPC 3.3—Candor Toward
the Tribunal—which prohibits lawyers from knowingly making and failing to
correct false statements of fact or law to a tribunal. At least two courts in other
jurisdictions have sanctioned or suspended lawyers for submitting filings with
fake quotes and citations generated by GAI and failing to “come clean” to the
court about their use.12
It also helps ensure compliance with ARPC 3.1—Meritorious Claims and
Contentions—which prohibits lawyers from bringing claims that do not have a
11 In early 2024, researchers at Stanford University announced the preliminary

results of a study finding that “[l]arge language models hallucinate at least 75%
of the time when answering questions about a court’s core ruling.” Isabel
Gottlieb & Isaiah Poritz, Legal Errors by Top AI Models “Alarmingly Prevalent,”
Study Says, Bloomberg Law (Jan. 12, 2024).
12 See Mata vs. Avianca, Inc., 2023 WL 4114965 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023);
People v. Crabill, No. 23PDJ067, 2023 WL 8111898 (Colo. O.P.D.J. Nov. 22,
2023).

8

basis in law. ARPC 3.1 also prohibits lawyers from bringing or defending claims
without a basis in fact. If a lawyer suspects that a client may be providing GAIgenerated or modified evidence, the lawyer should verify the veracity of the
evidence to ensure that no fabricated facts are presented to a court.
Finally, ARPC 8.4(f) says it is professional misconduct to “engage in conduct that
the lawyer knows is harassment or invidious discrimination” with individuals
involved in the legal system. Some GAI is trained using historical and biased
information—including information from eras when discrimination was the
law—so lawyers should be cautious to avoid potential biases when using GAI,
for example to screen potential clients.
Conclusion
In sum, a lawyer must reasonably ensure compliance with the lawyer’s ethical
obligations when using GAI tools. Those obligations include duties to (i)
communicate with a client about the use of GAI where it may not be foreseeable
or expected, (ii) avoid duplicative and excessive fees and costs for the use of GAI,
(iii) confirm before using any GAI tool whether it will safeguard client confidences
and secrets, (iv) set policies and procedures about the use of GAI and ensure
appropriate supervision of others who use GAI within a firm, and (v) ensure the
accuracy of GAI-provided information before communicating it to others.
Lawyers should be cognizant that GAI is still in its infancy and not treat these
ethical concerns as an exhaustive list. Rather, lawyers should continue to
develop GAI technological competency and learn its benefits and risks when used
in the practice of law.

Approved by the Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee on April 3, 2025.
Adopted by the Board of Governors on April 23, 2025.

9