When Must Attorneys Disclose AI Use?

What ABA Formal Opinion 512 Actually Says

[HITL: Plain-English read of FO 512 — the materiality test, the duty of competence (Rule 1.1, Comment 8), and the confidentiality obligations (Rule 1.6). Note that FO 512 is *not* a per-se disclosure rule — disclosure is required when AI use is 'material' to the representation. Define what 'material' means in practice.]

[HITL: Contrast FO 512 with the more aggressive state-bar takes — California Practical Guidance (Nov 2023), Florida Bar Opinion 24-1, Texas Ethics Opinion 700. Where do they go further than ABA?]

State Bar Guidance — Where the Lines Get Sharper

[HITL: Walk state-by-state through CA, NY, FL, TX, PA. For each: cite the opinion or guidance, summarize the disclosure trigger, note any unique requirements (e.g., FL's specific cost-of-AI disclosure for billing). Highlight where the state goes further than FO 512.]

[HITL: Address what to do if you practice in multiple jurisdictions — the strictest rule controls. Discuss the practical solution: a single firm-wide disclosure standard pegged to the strictest state where you regularly appear.]

Federal Court Standing Orders — Disclosure Required Before Filing

[HITL: Catalog of judges and districts with AI standing orders — start with Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.), then Judge Stephen Vaden (CIT), Judge Michael Baylson (E.D. Pa.), and the rolling list. Quote the typical certification language. Note that some require disclosure of *which* AI tool was used; others only require certification of human verification.]

[HITL: Practical mechanics — when do you certify, what document does it attach to, and what happens if a paralegal used an AI tool you didn't know about? Discuss the attorney's supervisory duty under Rule 5.3.]

Sanctions Cases — What Triggered Them, What Got Hit

[HITL: Walk through *Mata v. Avianca* in detail — the fabricated citations, the show-cause hearing, the $5K sanction. Then summarize 3-4 follow-on cases (Park v. Kim S.D.N.Y. 2024, Morgan v. Community Against Violence D.N.M. 2024, etc.) — what was sanctioned, how much, and what was the underlying conduct. The through-line: AI hallucinations + zero verification.]

The Safe Engagement-Letter Clause

Use this language in your engagement letters as a starting point. It satisfies ABA Model Rule 1.4 communication duties, Rule 1.6 confidentiality consent, and the disclosure thresholds in FO 512. Adjust state-specific language if you practice in jurisdictions with stricter requirements.

What If You Already Filed Without Disclosing?

[HITL: Practical fix — supplemental notice to the court, voluntary disclosure if minor, and how to handle if the AI output had errors. Address the duty of candor under Rule 3.3 — if you cited a hallucinated case, you have an affirmative duty to correct it. Discuss the difference between proactive correction (typically reduces sanctions) vs. waiting for opposing counsel to flag it.]