Products powered by artificial intelligence are proving beneficial to many lawyers, streamlining tasks such as legal research, contract drafting and review, discovery, and large-scale document analysis. For judges and magistrates, AI tools also facilitate thorough legal research, along with document management, scheduling, and other court operations. However, the use of AI in the legal profession comes with the parallel need to exercise caution and ensure that actions align with the ethical requirements of the profession.

The implications of the technology is expanding as generative AI tools – which generate text, images, audio, and video – are increasingly becoming integrated into the practice of law. At the request of the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct has published the “Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers” to help legal professionals ethically use AI tools. The resource, which was distributed to Ohio attorneys and judicial officers earlier this month, offers nonbinding ethical guidance and insights based on the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.

“The Board of Professional Conduct appreciates that the Supreme Court recognizes it is important for lawyers to balance the integration of AI into their practices with ensuring that lawyers are delivering the most competent and ethical services, without sacrificing the individual judgment and wisdom that their experience brings,” said Elizabeth Smith, director of the Board of Professional Conduct.

Ethics and AI for Attorneys
The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct don’t prohibit lawyers from using AI tools as part of providing legal services to clients. However, as the ethics guide explains, lawyers who integrate AI tools into their practices must keep in mind that the tools don’t possess the same experience, degree of understanding, and independent professional judgment that a human lawyer relies on when interpreting and applying the nuances of the law to a legal problem.

The guide explores how the use of AI tools can intersect with competency obligations; client confidentiality; client communication; preserving independent professional judgment; fee considerations; candor to tribunals and avoiding hallucinations; and the supervision of lawyers, staff, and AI-related vendors.

Lawyers have a duty to stay aware of changes in the practice of law, including the risks and benefits associated with relevant technology, such as AI. Lawyers must ensure that the work produced by AI is accurate, coherent, and reliable, and doesn’t compromise the quality of their legal representation or advocacy.

“Competent use of any AI tool also requires human review to check the facts, legal citations, and propositions of law included in court filings and summaries of case-related information,” the guide states.

One peril associated with generative AI is “hallucinations” – when AI generates inaccurate or fictitious results that are plausible or seem credible. The ethics guide notes that several lawyers in jurisdictions outside Ohio have been sanctioned by federal or state courts or disciplined by state disciplinary boards for providing fictitious citations and information in briefs and other court filings. The guide highlights the requirements of Ohio professional conduct rules to avoid such misconduct.

Use of AI Tools by Judicial Officers
While the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct doesn’t expressly address AI, judges and magistrates must ensure that any AI used to carry out judicial duties complies with the Code’s ethics rules. The ethics guide notes that AI tools shouldn’t be used in chambers or court operations unless the judge determines that the tools can be used without violating the Code of Judicial Conduct or court rules.

Also emphasized are cautions to protect the independent decision-making of courts and the drafting of court orders and decisions. For many reasons discussed in the ethics guide, judges are advised to avoid using AI to produce the first draft of a decision.

“AI is not the equivalent of human intelligence,” the guide states. “AI is better reserved as a supplemental tool for experienced judges or staff who can test, refine, or reject the system's output based on their own expertise, education, and professional judgment. Overreliance on AI by inexperienced judges can undermine the independent judicial reasoning that legitimizes judicial decision-making.”

Judicial officers can also find guidance on AI’s implications on ethics requirements related to competence, impartiality and fairness, ex parte information concerns, external influences, and confidentiality.