Generative AI and Legal Ethics; JD Supra, September 20, 2024

Craig Brodsky, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, JD Supra; Generative AI and Legal Ethics

 "In his scathing opinion, Cullen joined judges from New York Massachusetts and North Carolina, among others, by concluding that improper use of AI generated authorities may give rise to sanctions and disciplinary charges...

As a result, on July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional issued Formal Opinion 512 on Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. The ABA Standing Committee issued the opinion primarily because GAI tools are a “rapidly moving target” that can create significant ethical issues. The committee believed it necessary to offer “general guidance for lawyers attempting to navigate this emerging landscape.”

The committee’s general guidance is helpful, but the general nature of Opinion 512 it underscores part of my main concern — GAI has a wide-ranging impact on how lawyers practice that will increase over time. Unsurprisingly, at present, GAI implicates at least eight ethical rules ranging from competence (Md. Rule 19-301.1) to communication (Md. Rule 19-301.4), to fees (Md. Rule 19-301.5), to confidentiality, (Md. Rule 19-301.6), to supervisory obligations (Md. Rule 19-305.1 and Md. Rule 305.3) to the duties of a lawyer before tribunal to be candid and pursue meritorious claims and defenses. (Md. Rules 19-303.1 and 19-303.3).

As a technological feature of practice, lawyers cannot simply ignore GAI. The duty of competence under Rule 19-301.1 includes technical competence, and GAI is just another step forward. It is here to stay. We must embrace it but use it smartly.

Let it be an adjunct to your practice rather than having Chat GPT write your brief. Ensure that your staff understands that GAI can be helpful, but that the work product must be checked for accuracy.

After considering the ethical implications and putting the right processes in place, implement GAI and use it to your clients’ advantage."

AI chatbot can pass national lawyer ethics exam; Reuters, November 16, 2023

Karen Sloan, Reuters ; AI chatbot can pass national lawyer ethics exam

"Popular AI chatbot GPT-4 outperforms most aspiring lawyers on the legal ethics exam required by nearly every state in order to practice law, a new study has found.

GPT-4 answered 74% of the questions correctly on a simulated Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE), compared with an estimated 68% average among human test takers nationwide, according to a report released on Thursday by LegalOn Technologies — which sells AI software that reviews contracts...

A spokesperson for the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which develops the MPRE, said that it could not assess the LegalOn report's claims that GPT-4 can pass its ethics test.

"The legal profession is always evolving in its use of technology, and will continue to do so," said National Conference spokesperson Sophie Martin. She added that "attorneys have a unique set of skills that AI cannot currently match."...

“This research demonstrates for the first time that top-performing generative AI models can apply black-letter ethical rules as effectively as aspiring lawyers,” the study reads."

ANALYSIS: Professional Integrity Tops Lawyers’ Ethics Wish List; Bloomberg Law News, September 20, 2023

Melissa Heelan, Bloomberg Law News ; ANALYSIS: Professional Integrity Tops Lawyers’ Ethics Wish List

"Lawyers have undergone some soul-searching in the wake of election fraud cases and the Jan. 6 raid on the US Capitol. So it stands to reason that they chose “maintaining the integrity of the profession” as the legal ethics category most in need of revision, according to a recent Bloomberg Law survey. 

The respondents, both in-house and law firm lawyers, also said that they want to see more guidance on artificial intelligence and technology.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which provide the basis for state ethics rules, are divided into eight categories (in addition to a preamble), each comprised of anywhere between three (Counselor) and 18 (Client-Lawyer Relationship) rules."

Ethics, Quants and Cold-Calling; Bloomberg, May 25, 2017

Matt Levine, Bloomberg; 

Ethics, Quants and Cold-Calling

"Ethics.

I used to be a lawyer, and lawyers have a code of ethics. Now I am a journalist, and journalists have a code of ethics. One thing that strikes me about these codes is that they are opposites. Oversimplifying massively, the basic rule for a lawyer is that your obligations are to your client, and you have to act in her best interests, even if that is against the interests of accuracy; legal ethics is then mostly a set of exceptions to this principle. Oversimplifying massively, the basic rule for a journalist is that your obligations are to the public, and you should be accurate even if that is against the interests of the people you talk to; journalistic ethics is then mostly a set of exceptions to this principle. In both cases the exceptions are huge and important: You're not supposed to lie to the public as a lawyer, or mislead your sources as a journalist, etc; none of this is meant to be any sort of ethical advice. But if someone says to you "oh yeah I murdered someone," as a lawyer, your baseline expected response would be not to tell anyone; as a journalist, your baseline expected response would be to tell everyone.

Obviously these opposite rules make sense in their respective contexts; the role of a lawyer is different from that of a journalist, and each profession's ethics are well adapted to doing their jobs usefully. Still it is weird to think of them as "ethics." They are both functional systems adapted to the work of their professions, not absolute moral-ethical rules handed down by a higher power. Keeping a murderer's secret is not absolutely ethical for humans, and disclosing that secret is not absolutely ethical for humans; each is ethical or unethical depending on its social context."

Bipartisan Disapproval Follows Bill Clinton's Meeting With Loretta Lynch; NPR, 6/30/16

Carrie Johnson, NPR; Bipartisan Disapproval Follows Bill Clinton's Meeting With Loretta Lynch:

"From the standpoint of legal ethics, Lynch did nothing wrong, said New York University law school professor Stephen Gillers. Gillers said he didn't think the attorney general needed to recuse herself from overseeing the email probe. But Gillers took a sterner tone with Bill Clinton.

"It was the height of insensitivity for the former president to approach the attorney general," Gillers said. "He put her in a very difficult position. She wasn't really free to say she wouldn't talk to a former president," after Clinton boarded her plane in Arizona.

"He jeopardized her independence and did create an appearance of impropriety going on to her plane," Gillers added."