Alexandra Opdyke and Richard Waddington
Chandler Law, LLC
Introduction
The use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) by Georgia attorneys implicates at least nine of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“Georgia Rules”): Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, and 8.4(a)(4). In order to fulfill their ethical obligations and avoid State Bar disciplinary proceedings, Georgia attorneys who use AI (or supervise attorneys and support staff who use AI) must have a sufficient working knowledge of AI applications and understand how the Georgia Rules govern the use of such applications. Uninformed use of AI can lead to sanctions and disciplinary proceedings, including, in the most egregious circumstances, suspension or disbarment.
AI is increasingly incorporated into the practice of law, including through tools used for legal research, drafting, document review, and case management. Some attorneys use generative AI[1] tools directly, while others encounter AI indirectly through vendor platforms embedded in commonly used legal software. As these technologies become more prevalent, the ethical issues must continue to be evaluated.
Importantly, the use of AI does not create a new set of professional responsibilities. Existing rules of professional conduct continue to govern attorney behavior regardless of the tools employed. For Georgia attorneys, the use of AI is subject to the Georgia Rules, which at present provide a sufficient and flexible framework for assessing the ethical use of AI. It is likely, however, that the Georgia Rules will be revised to account for the rapidly changing AI landscape.
The American Bar Association (“ABA”) has taken a leading role in interpreting how existing ethical rules apply to the use of AI by issuing Formal Opinion 512. In that opinion, the ABA explained that competent use of AI requires attorneys to recognize the limitations of such tools, independently review AI generated work, and ensure that professional judgment remains with the attorney rather than the technology.[2] Guidance from the ABA on emerging ethical issues frequently informs how state bars, including Georgia, evaluate and apply their own rules of professional conduct.
Moreover, the Georgia Bar recently created the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology (“Special Committee”) to assess emergent ethical issues with regard to the use of AI. Among other things, the Special Committee concluded that lawyers would benefit from practical guidance on the ethical use and application of generative AI in the practice of law. In this regard, the Special Committee prepared and launched the State Bar of Georgia’s Generative AI Toolkit (“AI Toolkit”) to provide Georgia lawyers utilizing generative AI with guidance on the ethical use of such applications.[3]
Both the ABA Formal Opinion and the Special Committee’s AI Toolkit detail the rules of professional conduct at issue with the use of AI. Below, is a summary of the Georgia Rules implicated by the use of AI.
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.1 (Competence)
Georgia Rule 1.1 requires attorneys to provide competent representation, including the exercise of the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”[4] When AI is used in a representation, attorneys remain fully responsible for the accuracy, quality, and appropriateness of their work.
Reliance on AI does not relieve an attorney of the duty to exercise independent professional judgment. Georgia attorneys must therefore understand the role AI tools play in their practice and ensure that AI assisted work meets applicable professional standards. Competence requires attorneys to evaluate whether a particular AI tool is appropriate for the task at hand and to verify its output before relying on it in advising clients or making filings. Further, because the legal and technological landscape is constantly evolving, lawyers should be diligent in keeping abreast of changes in AI applications.
Rule 1.4 (Communication)
Georgia Rule 1.4 requires attorneys to explain matters to the extent “reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”[5] This duty of communication may be implicated when an attorney’s use of AI materially affects how legal services are provided.
The use of AI does not, by itself, require disclosure to a client in every circumstance. However, where AI tools meaningfully influence strategy, cost, efficiency, or the handling of client information, attorneys should consider whether client communication is necessary to ensure informed decision making. For example, the use of AI to draft substantive filings, evaluate legal risks, or process sensitive client information may raise questions that are relevant to a client’s expectations or consent.
Rule 1.4 therefore serves as an additional ethical lens through which attorneys should evaluate their use of AI. The focus is not on transparency for its own sake, but on whether the client has sufficient information to understand how the representation is being conducted and to make informed choices. As with other ethical obligations, the application of Rule 1.4 in the context of AI requires the exercise of professional judgment based on the circumstances of the representation.
Rule 1.5 (Fees)
Georgia Rule 1.5 governs a lawyer’s duties regarding fees and fee agreements. Fees must be reasonable and communicated clearly, preferably in writing, to clients. In setting fees, lawyers should consider how AI can reduce the time spent on tasks and whether this justifies an appropriate adjustment in the fee charged. Likewise, consideration should be given to disclosing in the fee agreement how AI influences fees. Further, lawyers should determine whether client informed consent is required prior to implementing AI tools that may impact billing.
Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality)
Georgia Rule 1.6 requires a lawyer to “maintain in confidence all information gained in the professional relationship with a client,” subject to the rule’s exceptions.[6] This duty underscores the importance of protecting client privacy and maintaining trust in the attorney-client relationship. For Georgia attorneys, confidentiality concerns are particularly salient in the context of emerging technologies that involve third-party data processing or storage. The scope of information protected by Rule 1.6 is broad and includes material information and communications relating to the representation of a client.
The use of AI raises confidentiality concerns where client information may be transmitted, stored, or analyzed outside the attorney’s direct control. For example, generative AI applications that are available to the public such as ChatGPT may not adequately maintain the confidentiality of user-uploaded information for purposes of an attorney’s professional obligations, and such information may be used by the provider to improve the application’s large language model. To better protect confidentiality, the attorney should instead use higher-tier options, like ChatGPT Team or Enterprise, which provide enhanced privacy and data-control features. Confidentiality risks may arise not only from intentional disclosures, but also from inadequate security measures, data breaches, or unclear vendor practices. Georgia attorneys should therefore approach the use of AI with the same care applied to other third-party service providers.
Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions)
Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 limits advocacy that is abusive or legally unwarranted, including prohibiting a lawyer from filing or taking action “when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.”[7] This obligation applies regardless of whether legal work is performed using traditional methods or with the assistance of AI.
The use of AI tools in legal research or drafting may implicate Rule 3.1 where such tools generate inaccurate, incomplete, or fabricated legal authority or factual assertions. Attorneys who rely on AI-generated content without independent verification risk asserting claims, arguments, or citations that lack a good faith basis in law or fact. The ethical concern is not the use of AI itself, but the potential for unverified AI output to undermine an attorney’s obligation to ensure that filings and arguments are meritorious.
Rule 3.1 therefore reinforces the importance of attorney oversight when AI is used in litigation related tasks. Georgia attorneys must independently confirm the accuracy of legal authorities, factual representations, and arguments before presenting them to a tribunal. The duty to avoid frivolous claims remains with the attorney and cannot be delegated to automated tools.
Rule 3.3 (Candor toward the Tribunal)
Georgia Rule 3.3 addresses candor to the tribunal and provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly “make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.”[8] This duty applies regardless of whether legal work is performed through traditional methods or with the assistance of AI.
The use of AI tools in legal research, drafting, or briefing may implicate Rule 3.3 where such tools generate inaccurate legal authority, misstate the law, or produce fabricated citations or factual assertions. Attorneys who submit AI generated content to a court without independent verification risk presenting false or misleading information to the tribunal, even if the inaccuracies were not intentionally created by the attorney.
Rule 3.3 therefore imposes a heightened obligation of attorney oversight when AI is used in connection with court filings or advocacy. Georgia attorneys must independently confirm the accuracy of legal authorities, factual representations, and arguments before presenting them to a tribunal. The duty of candor is personal to the attorney and cannot be satisfied through reliance on automated tools or third party technologies.
Rule 5.1 (Responsibilities of Partners, Managers and Supervisory Lawyers)
Georgia Rule 5.1 requires supervisory oversight and provides that firm leadership “shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.”[9] This rule may be implicated when AI tools are adopted or used within the firm’s practice.
The use of AI in a law firm is often not limited to individual attorneys but may involve firm wide tools, shared platforms, or standardized workflows. Where AI is incorporated into firm operations, supervisory lawyers have an obligation under Rule 5.1 to take reasonable steps to establish policies, training, or oversight mechanisms that promote ethical use of such technology. This includes ensuring that attorneys understand the limits of AI tools, the need for independent review, and the confidentiality and accuracy risks associated with AI assisted work.
Rule 5.1 therefore frames AI use as not only an individual ethical issue, but also a supervisory and organizational responsibility. Georgia supervisory attorneys must exercise reasonable oversight to ensure that AI tools are used in a manner consistent with professional obligations and that firm practices do not encourage reliance on technology in ways that undermine ethical compliance.
Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants)
Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3 requires oversight of nonlawyer assistants and provides that a lawyer with managerial authority “shall make reasonable efforts to ensure” measures are in place giving “reasonable assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.”[10] Although AI is not a person, the ethical concerns underlying Rule 5.3 of oversight, accountability, and prevention of misconduct, are directly implicated when attorneys rely on AI tools to assist with legal work.
AI tools can function as nonlawyer assistants by performing tasks such as drafting, research, document review, or data analysis. When attorneys use AI in this manner, Rule 5.3 requires reasonable efforts to ensure that the tool’s use is compatible with the attorney’s professional obligations. This includes understanding the tool’s capabilities and limitations, monitoring its output, and ensuring that its use does not result in inaccurate filings, improper disclosures, or other ethical violations.
Rule 5.3 reinforces that attorneys may not outsource ethical compliance to automated systems. Georgia attorneys remain responsible for supervising AI assisted work and for taking corrective action when errors or ethical risks arise. Framing AI as a nonlawyer assistant underscores that the attorney, not the technology, retains ultimate responsibility for compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In addition, lawyers should provide training for nonlawyer staff on the ethical use of AI, including emphasizing client confidentiality and accuracy. For example, a paralegal cite checking a brief should understand the limitations of AI and not rely solely on AI to verify the accuracy of the legal citations. Moreover, lawyers should be alert to the unauthorized use of AI by nonlawyers, as any errors arising therefrom may well be imputed to the lawyer.
Rule 8.4(a)(4) (Misconduct)
Georgia Rule 8.4(a)(4) identifies professional misconduct and includes “engag[ing] in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”[11] This rule may be implicated when attorneys use AI in ways that misrepresent the nature, source, or reliability of legal work.
The use of AI tools does not itself constitute misconduct. However, ethical concerns may arise where an attorney presents AI-generated content as independently prepared legal work without appropriate review, relies on AI output known to be inaccurate or misleading, or obscures the role AI played in producing work product in circumstances where accuracy or reliability is material. Similarly, using AI in a manner that creates false impressions about the extent of attorney involvement or diligence may raise concerns under Rule 8.4(a)(4).
Rule 8.4(a)(4) reinforces that honesty and integrity remain core professional obligations regardless of the tools used. Georgia attorneys must ensure that their use of AI does not result in misleading representations to clients, courts, or third parties and that AI assisted work is reviewed and presented in a manner consistent with the attorney’s duty of candor and professional integrity.
Case Examples Highlighting Risks of Improper AI Use
Recent court decisions illustrate the consequences attorneys may face when AI is used without adequate verification or oversight.
In a federal case in Wyoming, attorneys were sanctioned after filing Motions in Limine that cited multiple legal authorities that did not exist. The court determined that the fictitious citations were generated using an AI tool and incorporated into the motions without independent review. Emphasizing that attorneys are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the law presented to a tribunal, the court imposed monetary sanctions and removed one attorney from the case, making clear that reliance on AI does not excuse failures to verify legal authority.[12]
A similar issue arose in Georgia, where a state appellate court sanctioned an attorney for citing numerous authorities that were either nonexistent or irrelevant. Although the court did not focus on the specific technology used, the errors were consistent with AI generated “hallucinations.” The court imposed the maximum penalty available under its rules and underscored that attorneys bear responsibility for the accuracy of their citations and arguments, regardless of how legal research or drafting is performed.[13]
Together, these cases demonstrate that courts are increasingly attentive to the use of AI in legal practice and that failures to independently verify AI assisted work can result in sanctions. They reinforce that ethical duties of competence, candor, and honesty remain firmly with the attorney, even as new technologies are incorporated into legal workflows.
Conclusion
The ethical use of AI in legal practice by Georgia attorneys is governed by no fewer than nine of the Georgia Rules, including Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, and 8.4(a)(4). In practice, attorneys can comply with their ethical obligations when using AI by approaching these tools thoughtfully and deliberately. Attorneys should maintain a working understanding of the AI tools they use, including how the tools generate output and the types of errors or limitations that may arise. Independent review of all AI assisted work remains essential, particularly where AI is used for legal research, drafting, or analysis.
Attorneys should also carefully assess confidentiality risks before using AI tools in connection with client matters. This includes evaluating whether client information can be anonymized, whether tools retain or reuse user inputs, and whether platform security measures are adequate given the sensitivity of the information involved. Matters involving highly sensitive personal, financial, or privileged information may warrant greater caution or avoidance of certain AI tools altogether.
Because AI and related guidance continue to evolve, attorneys should periodically reevaluate their use of AI and remain attentive to developments in ethical guidance, technology, and industry practices. Ongoing assessment helps ensure that the use of AI remains consistent with professional obligations over time.
AI may enhance legal practice, but it does not diminish attorneys’ ethical responsibilities. By exercising independent professional judgment, verifying AI assisted work, and taking reasonable steps to protect client information, Georgia attorneys can integrate AI into their practices in a manner consistent with their ethical obligations. Recent court decisions further underscore that failures to verify AI assisted work or to supervise its use appropriately can result in real professional consequences, reinforcing the continued relevance of these longstanding ethical duties. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into the practice of law, attorneys must adapt by ensuring that their use of such tools remains grounded in ethical principles and professional responsibility.
[1] As used here, “generative AI” refers to tools that generate text, analysis, or other content in response to user prompts, including tools used for legal research, drafting, or analysis.
[2] A.B.A. Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 512 (2024), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf.
[3] State Bar of Ga., Generative AI Toolkit, (2025), https://assets.alm.com/3e/b0/8bbde51d412886f9029653170657/generative-ai-toolkit.pdf.
[4] Ga. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.1.
[5] Ga. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.4.
[6] Ga. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.6.
[7] Ga. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 3.1.
[8] Ga. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 3.3.
[9] Ga. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 5.1.
[10] Ga. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 5.3.
[11] Ga. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 8.4(a)(4).
[12] Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489 (D. Wyo. 2025).
[13] Shahid v. Esaam, 376 Ga. App. 145, 918 S.E.2d 198 (2025).
