Alexandra Opdyke and Richard Waddington
Chandler Law, LLC
Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in the practice of law, including legal research, drafting, document review, and law firm management systems. For Georgia lawyers, the use of artificial intelligence raises important legal ethics and professional responsibility considerations under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. These considerations matter not because AI creates new duties, but because existing duties continue to apply regardless of the technology used.
In recent years, courts and disciplinary authorities have paid closer attention to how lawyers use technology in their practices. Errors involving inaccurate filings, inadequate supervision, or improper handling of client information frequently surface in Georgia Bar grievance investigations. As AI tools become more common, lawyers must understand how ethical obligations apply to their use.
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct Implicated by AI Use
The use of artificial intelligence by Georgia attorneys implicates multiple ethical rules, including Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, and 8.4(a)(4). Together, these rules reflect a consistent principle. The lawyer, not the technology, remains accountable for ethical compliance.
Competence and Professional Judgment
Rule 1.1 requires competent representation, including the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. When AI tools are used for legal research, drafting, or analysis, competence requires understanding how those tools function and where their limitations exist.
Georgia lawyers remain responsible for independently reviewing AI-assisted work. Reliance on unverified output has led to sanctions in multiple jurisdictions and is increasingly cited in disciplinary proceedings involving technology-related errors. Maintaining competence now includes staying informed about emerging legal technology and its ethical risks.
Client Communication and Informed Decision-Making
Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to communicate sufficiently with clients to permit informed decisions regarding the representation. While the use of AI does not require disclosure in every case, communication may be appropriate when AI materially affects strategy, cost, efficiency, or the handling of sensitive client information.
In the disciplinary context, communication failures often arise when clients misunderstand how their matter is being handled. Thoughtful consideration of when AI use should be discussed with a client can help reduce misunderstandings and related grievance risk.
Fees and Billing Practices
Rule 1.5 governs attorney fees and requires that fees be reasonable and clearly communicated. Because artificial intelligence may reduce the time required for certain tasks, Georgia lawyers should evaluate whether fee structures remain appropriate in light of AI-assisted efficiencies.
Lawyers should also consider whether engagement agreements should address the role of AI in service delivery, particularly where technology meaningfully affects billing or cost expectations.
Confidentiality and Data Security
Rule 1.6 confidentiality obligations are central to the ethical use of artificial intelligence. Many AI tools rely on third-party processing or cloud-based storage, and some publicly available platforms may retain or reuse user inputs.
Confidentiality issues are a frequent focus of Georgia Bar grievance investigations. Lawyers must assess whether client information can be anonymized, whether AI vendors provide adequate safeguards, and whether higher-tier or enterprise solutions are necessary to protect sensitive information. AI tools should be evaluated with the same care applied to any third-party service provider.
Candor to the Tribunal and Meritorious Claims
Rules 3.1 and 3.3 govern meritorious claims and candor toward the tribunal. These rules have taken on increased significance as courts encounter filings containing AI-generated inaccuracies, including fabricated case citations and misstatements of law.
Courts have emphasized that the ethical violation is not the use of AI itself, but the failure to independently verify accuracy before presenting arguments to a tribunal. Such failures can expose lawyers to sanctions and disciplinary scrutiny.
Supervision Within the Law Firm
Rules 5.1 and 5.3 impose supervisory obligations on managing and supervisory lawyers. When AI tools are used firm-wide or by nonlawyer staff, leadership must implement policies, training, and oversight to ensure ethical compliance.
In disciplinary matters, lack of supervision is a recurring issue. AI often functions like a nonlawyer assistant, and lawyers must supervise its use accordingly. Responsibility for the final work product remains with the lawyer.
Professional Integrity and Ethical Conduct
Rule 8.4(a)(4) prohibits professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Ethical concerns may arise if lawyers present AI-generated work as independently prepared without appropriate review, rely on known inaccuracies, or obscure the role of AI where accuracy or reliability is material.
Ethical AI Use Requires Ongoing Attention
Artificial intelligence may enhance efficiency, but it does not diminish ethical responsibility. Georgia lawyers must verify AI-assisted work, protect client confidentiality, and ensure that technology supports, rather than replaces, professional judgment.
Because AI tools and ethical guidance continue to evolve, lawyers should periodically reassess how artificial intelligence is used in their practices. Ongoing education and thoughtful risk management can help reduce the likelihood of errors that lead to Georgia Bar grievances or disciplinary investigations.
Chandler Law regularly advises and defends Georgia lawyers on professional responsibility, ethics compliance, and malpractice risk management, including emerging issues involving artificial intelligence. Lawyers seeking ongoing guidance on these issues may find additional resources through Chandler Law’s Professional Liability & Ethics Protection Program (PLEPP): https://chlnew.gcm.codes/resources/pl-membership/
