The Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association issued a genAI opinion that expects proficiency in technology, including genAI.

As discussed by Bob Ambrogi in his excellent LawSites blog, the opinion, jointly issued by the Pennsylvania Bar and Philadelphia Bar, was issued to educate attorneys on the benefits and pitfalls of using generative AI and to provide ethical guidelines.

As Bob notes: “While the opinion is focused on AI, it repeatedly emphasizes that a lawyer’s ethical obligations surrounding this emerging form of technology are no different than those for any form of technology.” And it does so with this statement – not once, but twice within the opinion:

“Lawyers must be proficient in using technological tools to the same extent they are in employing traditional methods.”

The second occurrence, toward the end of the opinion, also adds this:

“Whether it is understanding how to navigate legal research databases, use e-discovery software, use their smartphones, use email, or otherwise safeguard client information in digital formats, lawyers are required to maintain competence across all technological means relevant to their practice…In sum, lawyers must act reasonably, and their duty of competence applies equally to technology as it does to any other aspect of legal representation.”

The 16-page opinion offers a concise primer on the use of generative AI in law practice, including a brief background on the technology and a summary of other states’ ethics opinions. It also concludes with a terrific set of 12 points of responsibility pertaining to lawyers using generative AI. Examples include: Be truthful and accurate, Verify all citations and the accuracy of cited materials, Maintain confidentiality, and Maintain transparency.

Bob boils down the advice from the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia ethics panels very simply: “Don’t be stupid.”

“Like: If you ask ChatGPT to find cases to support your argument and then you file them in court without even bothering to read or Shepardize them, that is stupid.

Like: If you ask a generative AI tool to create a court filing or a client email and then you send it out unedited, that is stupid.”

While the opinion from the Pennsylvania Bar and Philadelphia Bar doesn’t put it as plainly as Bob does, their opinion makes it clear that competence with technological tools is just as important as knowledge of traditional methods. Well put!

So, what do you think? Should lawyers not only be aware of, but proficient in using technological tools? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Wikitravel

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the authors and speakers themselves, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.