Attorneys practicing in the District of Columbia face unique ethical considerations when integrating artificial intelligence into their practices. The DC Rules of Professional Conduct, which contain notable variations from the ABA Model Rules, govern AI use by DC Bar members. Given Washington, D.C.’s concentration of federal government lawyers, regulatory practitioners, and major law firms, AI ethics compliance carries particular significance in the District.
DC Bar Overview#
Regulatory Authority#
The DC Bar operates under the authority of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to regulate attorney conduct in the District. The DC Bar provides ethics guidance, administers discipline through the Board on Professional Responsibility, and supports the legal community through various programs and resources.
Contact Information:
- Address: 901 Fourth Street NW, Washington, DC 20001
- Phone: (202) 737-4700
- Website: dcbar.org
Ethics Resources#
The DC Bar provides comprehensive ethics guidance through:
- Legal Ethics Program: Guidance on DC Rules of Professional Conduct
- Ethics Opinions: Published opinions interpreting the DC Rules
- Ask the Ethics Experts: Informal ethics guidance service
- Practice Management Advisory Service: Technology and practice guidance
Current AI Guidance Status#
The DC Bar’s Legal Ethics Committee regularly addresses emerging technology issues. Attorneys should monitor DC Bar publications and ethics opinions for forthcoming AI guidance.
Notable DC Rules Differences#
The DC Rules of Professional Conduct differ from the ABA Model Rules in several important respects that affect AI analysis:
- DC’s confidentiality rule (Rule 1.6) has a different structure than the Model Rule
- DC permits certain fee-sharing arrangements not allowed elsewhere
- DC’s supervision rules have unique provisions
Core Ethical Obligations for AI Use#
DC Rule 1.1: Competence#
DC Rule 1.1 requires attorneys to provide competent representation, including “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
AI Competence Requirements:
Competent AI use in the District requires:
- Technology Proficiency: Understanding how AI tools function, including their capabilities and limitations
- Hallucination Awareness: Recognizing that generative AI can fabricate citations, cases, and legal propositions
- Verification Discipline: Independently verifying all AI-generated content
- Appropriate Application: Using AI only where it provides reliable, verifiable assistance
Federal Practice Considerations:
Many DC attorneys practice before federal agencies and courts. AI competence includes:
- Understanding jurisdiction-specific legal nuances that AI may miss
- Verifying AI outputs against current federal regulations and agency guidance
- Recognizing that AI training data may not reflect the latest regulatory developments
- Ensuring compliance with agency-specific rules on technology use
Verification Protocol:
- Check citations in Westlaw, Lexis, or official federal/DC reporters
- Verify regulatory citations against current CFR and Federal Register
- Check quoted language against original sources
- Confirm agency guidance citations are current
- Review AI analysis for accuracy in complex regulatory matters
DC Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information#
DC Rule 1.6 governs confidentiality but differs structurally from the Model Rule. Under DC Rule 1.6(a), lawyers may reveal client confidences or secrets only with client consent or as impliedly authorized.
AI and DC Confidentiality:
The duty to protect confidential information applies fully to AI use:
Critical Questions Before AI Input:
- Does the AI platform’s Terms of Service adequately protect confidentiality?
- Is inputted data shared with third parties?
- Is data used to train or improve the AI model?
- What security measures protect stored information?
- How long is data retained?
Confidentiality Compliance:
- Review platform policies before use
- Favor enterprise/professional versions with enhanced privacy
- Anonymize or redact identifying information when possible
- Obtain informed consent for sensitive information input
- Consider local/on-premises AI for highly confidential matters
- Document confidentiality due diligence
Government and Classified Work:
DC attorneys handling government matters must be especially cautious:
- Never input classified or controlled unclassified information into commercial AI
- Verify AI platforms meet agency security requirements
- Follow agency-specific guidance on AI use
- Consider conflict-of-interest implications of AI data handling
DC Rule 1.3: Diligence (Zeal)#
DC Rule 1.3 requires lawyers to “represent a client zealously and diligently within the bounds of the law.”
AI and Zealous Representation:
- AI should enhance, not replace, thorough legal analysis
- Verification time is part of diligent representation
- AI failures don’t excuse inadequate preparation
- Efficiency gains should serve client interests
DC Rule 1.4: Communication#
DC Rule 1.4 requires keeping clients reasonably informed and consulting with clients about how their objectives will be accomplished.
AI Disclosure Considerations:
While DC has not mandated AI disclosure, communication duties may require disclosure when:
- AI use materially affects the representation
- Confidential information will be processed by AI
- AI use affects fees or billing
- Clients specifically inquire about technology use
- Informed consent is needed for AI-related decisions
Recommended Practice: Address AI use in engagement letters and discuss practices with clients during initial consultations.
DC Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal#
DC Rule 3.3 prohibits making false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal.
Court and Agency Filing Obligations:
Pre-Filing Requirements:
- Verify every citation in official reporters or regulatory sources
- Confirm quoted language matches originals
- Ensure legal propositions accurately state the law
- Check that regulatory citations reflect current requirements
- Comply with any court or agency AI disclosure requirements
DC Rules 5.1 & 5.3: Supervisory Responsibilities#
DC Rules 5.1 and 5.3 establish supervision requirements over lawyers and nonlawyers.
AI Supervision Framework:
Managing Attorney Responsibilities:
- Establish clear firm policies on AI use
- Provide training on ethical AI practices
- Implement verification and quality control protocols
- Monitor compliance with AI policies
- Take responsibility for AI-assisted work product
AI as “Nonlawyer Assistance”:
Courts increasingly treat AI tools analogously to nonlawyer assistants. Under Rule 5.3:
- Supervise AI outputs as you would a paralegal’s work
- Verify AI-generated content before use
- Don’t delegate professional judgment to AI
- Accept ultimate responsibility for all work product
Billing Considerations Under DC Rule 1.5#
DC Rule 1.5 addresses fees, including requirements that fees not be “clearly excessive.” AI raises important billing questions:
Ethical Billing Practices#
Permissible:
- Time spent developing and refining AI prompts
- Time reviewing, verifying, and editing AI outputs
- Actual time invested in creating work product
- AI-related costs passed through with disclosure
Prohibited:
- Billing for time not actually spent
- Charging for hypothetical “manual” hours saved
- Misrepresenting AI work as entirely manual
- Clearly excessive fees in light of AI efficiency
DC Fee-Sharing Considerations#
DC’s unique rules on fee-sharing may intersect with AI when:
- AI tools are provided by co-counsel or referral relationships
- AI costs are shared among attorneys on a matter
- Fee arrangements incorporate AI efficiency expectations
DC Court and Federal Agency Considerations#
DC Court of Appeals#
The DC Court of Appeals oversees attorney conduct and may issue orders addressing AI. Monitor for developments in court rules and practice.
DC Superior Court#
The DC Superior Court handles a high volume of civil and criminal matters. Attorneys should:
- Check for local rules or standing orders on AI
- Comply with any verification requirements
- Monitor for updates to local practices
Federal Courts in DC#
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit handle significant federal litigation:
- Review any standing orders on AI disclosure
- Comply with federal court certification requirements
- Monitor evolving federal court AI policies
Federal Agencies#
DC’s concentration of federal agency practice requires attention to:
- Agency-specific rules on technology use
- Security requirements for regulated information
- Administrative procedure requirements
- Agency ethics rules supplementing DC Bar rules
Comprehensive Compliance Framework#
Pre-Adoption Due Diligence:
- Research AI tool capabilities and limitations
- Review Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
- Assess data security measures
- Determine data training and sharing policies
- Verify compliance with any government security requirements
Before Each Use: 6. Assess appropriateness for the specific task 7. Consider confidentiality implications 8. Determine whether client consent is needed 9. Ensure verification capability
During AI Use: 10. Use clear, specific prompts 11. Minimize confidential information input 12. Maintain professional judgment 13. Document AI use and process
Post-Output Verification: 14. Verify all case and regulatory citations 15. Check quoted language against originals 16. Shepardize/KeyCite all authority 17. Review for accuracy under current law 18. Edit for accuracy and client-specific requirements 19. Confirm court/agency rule compliance
Billing Protocol: 20. Track and bill only actual time 21. Don’t charge for AI “saved time” 22. Ensure fees are reasonable 23. Disclose AI-related costs appropriately
Supervision Requirements: 24. Establish and maintain firm AI policies 25. Train attorneys and staff 26. Implement verification protocols 27. Monitor compliance 28. Update policies as technology evolves
Government/Agency Practice: 29. Verify compliance with agency technology requirements 30. Never input classified or CUI into commercial AI 31. Follow agency-specific AI guidance 32. Document compliance with security requirements
DC Rules of Professional Conduct Reference#
| Rule | Obligation | AI Application |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.1 | Competence | Understand AI; verify all outputs |
| Rule 1.3 | Diligence/Zeal | AI enhances, doesn’t replace, thorough work |
| Rule 1.4 | Communication | Disclose AI use when material |
| Rule 1.5 | Fees | Bill actual time; avoid clearly excessive fees |
| Rule 1.6 | Confidentiality | Protect confidences in AI systems |
| Rule 3.3 | Candor | Verify all content before court/agency submission |
| Rule 5.1 | Supervisory Duties | Establish policies; ensure compliance |
| Rule 5.3 | Nonlawyer Assistance | Supervise AI like nonlawyer staff |
Malpractice Considerations#
DC attorneys should address malpractice implications of AI use:
Insurance Review:
- Check policy coverage for AI-related claims
- Disclose AI practices to insurers as required
- Document verification procedures
Risk Management:
- Implement verification protocols firm-wide
- Maintain records of AI use and verification
- Establish clear policies demonstrating professional standards
- Consider the higher scrutiny of federal practice
Frequently Asked Questions#
Has the DC Bar issued AI-specific ethics guidance?
How do DC confidentiality rules apply to AI?
Can DC attorneys use AI for federal regulatory research?
What are AI verification requirements before court or agency filings?
How should DC law firms supervise AI use?
What are special considerations for government lawyers using AI?
Resources#
DC Resources#
- DC Rules of Professional Conduct
- DC Bar Ethics Opinions
- Ask the Ethics Experts
- Practice Management Advisory Service
National Resources#
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
- AI Hallucinations in Courts - Sanctions cases and verification requirements
- State-by-State AI Ethics Guide - Compare guidance across jurisdictions
Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in DC?
While the DC Bar has not yet issued comprehensive AI guidance, the DC Rules of Professional Conduct provide a clear framework for ethical AI use. Given DC's concentration of federal practice, understanding your AI ethics obligations is essential.
Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney