Showing posts with label ABA ethics opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABA ethics opinions. Show all posts

Monday, August 19, 2024

New ABA Rules on AI and Ethics Shows the Technology Is 'New Wine in Old Bottles'; The Law Journal Editorial Board via Law.com, August 16, 2024

The Law Journal Editorial Board via Law.com; New ABA Rules on AI and Ethics Shows the Technology Is 'New Wine in Old Bottles'

On July 29, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 512 on generative artificial intelligence tools. The opinion follows on such opinions and guidance from several state bar associations, as well as similar efforts by non-U.S. bars and regulatory bodies around the world...

Focused on GAI, the opinion addresses six core principles: competence, confidentiality, communication, meritorious claims and candor to tribunal, supervision and fees...

What is not commonly understood, perhaps, is that GAI “hallucinates,” and generates content...

Not addressed in the opinion is whether GAI is engaged in the practice of law...

At the ABA annual meeting, representatives of more than 20 “foreign” bars participated in a roundtable on GAI. In a world of cross-border practice, there was a desire for harmonization."

Friday, May 5, 2023

New ABA ethics opinion warns about handling retainer and other fees; ABA Journal, May 3, 2023

 DAVID L. HUDSON JR., ABA Journal; New ABA ethics opinion warns about handling retainer and other fees

"“When a client pays an advance to a lawyer, the lawyer takes possession—but not ownership—of the funds to secure payment for the services the lawyer will render to the client in the future,” according to Formal Opinion 505.

The opinion acknowledges that there is a type of fee called a general retainer, whereby a client pays the lawyer a fee to “reserve the lawyer’s availability.” However, the opinion notes that general retainers are quite rare and not consistent with the modern practice of law. The opinion also cautions that a general retainer “may be determined to be an unreasonable fee or even unearned if the lawyer does not make himself or herself available.”

Rather, the term “retainer” should normally be labeled as an advance."