In May 2024, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Philadelphia Bar Association jointly released Formal Opinion 2024-200, providing comprehensive guidance on ethical issues regarding attorney use of artificial intelligence. This joint opinion reflects collaboration between the state’s two major bar associations and addresses the full range of AI ethics considerations.
Key Ethics Opinion#
Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (May 2024)#
Opinion 2024-200 is a joint opinion from:
- Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility
- Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee
Full Text: PA Bar Joint Opinion 2024-200 (PDF)
Core Requirements#
Understanding the Technology#
Opinion 2024-200 establishes that attorneys must:
- Understand the technology and how it works
- Understand benefits and risks of AI tools
- Check and verify all citations and material cited
- Educate the client and seek informed consent when benefits outweigh risks
Verification Requirements#
Pennsylvania emphasizes rigorous verification:
- All citations must be verified against original sources
- AI-generated case law must be confirmed accurate
- Misleading or false submissions are prohibited
- Hallucinations (AI-generated incorrect information) must be caught before filing
The opinion specifically warns: AI systems can generate incorrect or misleading information, and attorneys have seen real-world consequences for submitting AI-generated errors.
Confidentiality#
Prohibition: “A lawyer must not input any confidential information of a client into AI that lacks adequate confidentiality and security protections.”
Before Using AI with Client Data:
- Verify the AI platform has adequate security
- Review terms of service for data handling
- Assess whether information is shared or used for training
- Consider enterprise solutions with enhanced protections
Transparency and Disclosure#
Pennsylvania requires transparency across multiple dimensions:
With Clients:
- Communicate about using AI technologies in practice
- Provide clear explanations of how AI tools are employed
- Explain potential impact on case outcomes
- Obtain client consent before using certain AI tools
With Courts and Colleagues:
- Disclose any limitations or uncertainties in AI-generated content
- Be prepared to discuss AI use if questioned
Billing Practices#
Pennsylvania addresses billing fairness:
Required:
- Disclose AI-related expenses to clients
- Bill only for actual time spent
- Consider value-based fees when AI increases efficiency
Prohibited:
- Overcharging when AI boosts efficiency
- Billing as if work was done manually when AI saved time
- Padding hours beyond actual work performed
Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct Implicated#
Opinion 2024-200 identifies eleven rules implicated by AI use:
| Rule | Obligation | AI Application |
|---|---|---|
| Rule 1.1 | Competence | Understand AI; verify outputs |
| Rule 1.4 | Communication | Explain AI use to clients |
| Rule 1.5 | Fees | Reasonable billing; disclose AI costs |
| Rule 1.6 | Confidentiality | Protect client data in AI systems |
| Rule 1.7 | Current Client Conflicts | Consider AI data across matters |
| Rule 1.9 | Former Client Duties | Protect former client information |
| Rule 3.1 | Meritorious Claims | No frivolous AI-generated claims |
| Rule 3.3 | Candor | Verify AI content before filing |
| Rule 5.1 | Supervisory Responsibilities | Establish AI policies |
| Rule 5.3 | Nonlawyer Assistance | Supervise AI like staff |
| Rule 5.5 | Unauthorized Practice | Don’t delegate legal judgment to AI |
| Rule 8.4 | Misconduct | No deceptive AI use |
AI Hallucinations and Bias#
Opinion 2024-200 specifically addresses two AI risks:
Hallucinations#
The opinion discusses instances where AI generates incorrect or misleading information:
- AI can fabricate citations, quotes, and legal propositions
- “These issues have led to real-world consequences”
- Attorneys have faced court proceedings for AI-generated errors
- Verification is essential, not optional
Bias#
AI systems may contain inherent biases from training datasets:
- Training data may reflect historical biases
- Outputs may inadvertently discriminate
- Attorneys should be aware of potential bias in AI-generated content
- Consider reviewing AI outputs for bias-related issues
AI Disclosure Requirements in Pennsylvania#
Pennsylvania emphasizes transparency:
Client Disclosure:
- Required when using AI technologies in client matters
- Clear explanations of AI use and impact
- Consent required before certain AI tools are used
Expense Disclosure:
- AI-related expenses must be disclosed to clients
- Include AI costs in engagement letter discussions
- Transparent billing for AI-assisted work
Court Disclosure:
- Disclose limitations or uncertainties in AI-generated content
- Verify accuracy before submission
- Be prepared to discuss AI use if questioned
Practical Compliance Steps for Pennsylvania Attorneys#
Before Using AI:
- Understand how the AI technology works
- Assess the benefits and risks for your specific use
- Review platform security and confidentiality protections
- Determine if client consent is needed
For Client Communication: 5. Explain AI use in engagement letters 6. Discuss how AI tools will be employed 7. Obtain consent for specific AI applications 8. Disclose AI-related expenses upfront
For Confidentiality: 9. Never input confidential data without adequate protections 10. Review AI platform terms of service 11. Consider enterprise solutions for sensitive matters 12. Document confidentiality safeguards
For Verification: 13. Verify every citation against original sources 14. Check all quoted language for accuracy 15. Shepardize/KeyCite all cited authority 16. Review for hallucinations and bias
For Billing: 17. Disclose all AI-related expenses 18. Bill only for actual time spent 19. Don’t inflate hours based on manual work equivalent 20. Consider value-based billing when appropriate
For Supervision: 21. Establish written firm AI policies 22. Train lawyers and staff on ethical AI use 23. Review all AI-generated work product 24. Document supervision procedures
Comparison to Other States#
Pennsylvania’s joint opinion aligns with national trends while adding unique elements:
| Feature | Pennsylvania | Florida | California | New York |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Client Consent | Required for certain uses | Recommended | Circumstantial | Recommended |
| Expense Disclosure | Required | Required | Required | Recommended |
| Bias Addressed | Yes | No | No | Limited |
| Conflicts Rules | Addressed (1.7, 1.9) | Not addressed | Not addressed | Not addressed |
| Joint Opinion | Yes (PBA + Phila Bar) | No | No | NYSBA + NYC Bar |
Pennsylvania’s attention to conflicts of interest rules (1.7, 1.9) and AI bias is distinctive.
Frequently Asked Questions#
What does Pennsylvania Opinion 2024-200 require for AI use?
Must Pennsylvania attorneys disclose AI use to clients?
How should Pennsylvania attorneys handle AI billing?
What unique concerns does Pennsylvania's opinion address?
Resources#
- PA Bar Joint Opinion 2024-200 (PDF)
- Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct
- Pennsylvania Bar Association Ethics Resources
- Philadelphia Bar Association
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
- AI Hallucinations in Courts - Sanctions cases and verification requirements
Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania's Joint Opinion 2024-200 provides comprehensive guidance with unique attention to conflicts, bias, and client consent. Understanding your obligations under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct is essential for compliant AI integration in your practice.
Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney