Washington became one of the first states to provide comprehensive AI ethics guidance with the release of Advisory Opinion 202505 addressing artificial intelligence-enabled tools in law practice. The Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Committee on Professional Ethics issued this landmark opinion, providing Washington attorneys with clear guidance on integrating AI technology while maintaining ethical compliance.
Washington State Bar Association Overview#
Regulatory Authority#
The Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) operates under the authority of the Washington Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law in Washington State. The WSBA administers attorney licensing, discipline, and ethics guidance through its Professional Responsibility Program.
Contact Information:
- Address: 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98101
- Phone: (206) 443-9722
- Website: wsba.org
Ethics Resources#
The WSBA provides comprehensive ethics guidance through:
- Ethics Line: Informal guidance on ethical questions
- Advisory Opinions: Formal opinions from the Committee on Professional Ethics
- Ethics FAQs: Answers to common ethical questions
- Rules of Professional Conduct: Washington RPC interpretations
Key AI Guidance: Advisory Opinion 202505#
Scope of the Opinion#
Advisory Opinion 202505 addresses the ethical obligations of Washington attorneys when using AI tools, including:
- Generative AI (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.)
- AI-powered legal research platforms
- Document drafting and analysis tools
- Practice management AI features
Key Principles#
The opinion emphasizes several core principles:
- AI is a Tool, Not a Replacement: AI tools assist attorneys but do not replace professional judgment
- Verification is Essential: All AI-generated content must be independently verified
- Confidentiality Protections Apply: Client information must be protected when using AI
- Competence Requires Understanding: Attorneys must understand AI capabilities and limitations
- Supervision Duties Extend to AI: Attorneys must supervise AI use as they would human assistants
Core Ethical Obligations Under Washington RPC#
RPC 1.1: Competence#
Washington RPC 1.1 requires that “a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client,” including “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
AI Competence Requirements:
Under Advisory Opinion 202505, competent AI use requires:
- Understanding the Technology: Know how the AI tool works, its data sources, and its limitations
- Recognizing Limitations: Understand that AI can generate inaccurate or fabricated content
- Verification Protocols: Independently verify all AI outputs before reliance
- Appropriate Task Selection: Use AI only for tasks where it provides reliable assistance
Practical Competence Steps:
- Research AI tools before adoption to understand their capabilities
- Test AI outputs against known-correct answers before relying on new tools
- Verify all citations in Westlaw, Lexis, or official Washington reporters
- Check quoted language against original sources
- Shepardize or KeyCite all cited authority
- Review AI analysis for consistency with Washington law
RPC 1.6: Confidentiality of Information#
Washington RPC 1.6 requires lawyers to protect information relating to client representation.
AI Confidentiality Obligations:
Advisory Opinion 202505 emphasizes that confidentiality duties apply fully to AI use:
Before Using AI:
- Review the AI platform’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
- Determine whether inputted data is used for model training
- Verify whether data is shared with third parties
- Assess the platform’s security measures
- Consider whether enterprise/professional versions offer better protections
Confidentiality Safeguards:
- Use AI platforms with robust data protection commitments
- Consider local or on-premises AI solutions for sensitive matters
- Anonymize or redact client-identifying information when possible
- Obtain informed consent when inputting confidential information
- Document your confidentiality due diligence
RPC 1.3: Diligence#
Washington RPC 1.3 requires lawyers to “act with reasonable diligence and promptness.”
AI and Diligent Practice:
- AI tools should enhance efficiency without compromising thoroughness
- Verification time is part of diligent representation
- AI failures don’t excuse missed deadlines or inadequate preparation
- Efficiency gains should benefit clients through better service
RPC 1.4: Communication#
Washington RPC 1.4 requires keeping clients reasonably informed and consulting with clients about means of achieving objectives.
AI Disclosure Under Washington Guidance:
Advisory Opinion 202505 addresses AI disclosure:
- Material Circumstances: Disclose AI use when it materially affects the representation
- Confidentiality Impact: Inform clients when AI use affects how their information is handled
- Fee Impact: Discuss AI use that affects billing or fee arrangements
- Client Inquiries: Respond honestly when clients ask about AI use
Best Practice: Include AI use provisions in engagement letters and discuss AI practices with clients proactively.
RPC 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal#
Washington RPC 3.3 prohibits making false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal.
Court Filing Obligations:
Pre-Filing Verification:
- Confirm every case citation in official reporters
- Verify all statutory and regulatory citations
- Check that quoted language matches original sources
- Ensure legal propositions accurately reflect Washington law
- Comply with any local court AI disclosure requirements
RPC 5.1 & 5.3: Supervisory Responsibilities#
Washington Rules 5.1 and 5.3 establish supervision requirements over lawyers and nonlawyer assistants.
AI Supervision Framework:
Advisory Opinion 202505 treats AI tools as analogous to nonlawyer assistants:
Partner/Managing Attorney Duties:
- Establish clear firm policies on AI use
- Ensure lawyers understand ethical obligations related to AI
- Implement verification and quality control protocols
- Monitor compliance with AI policies
- Provide training on ethical AI practices
AI as “Nonlawyer Assistant”:
- Supervise AI outputs as you would supervise a paralegal’s work
- Verify AI-generated content before use
- Don’t delegate professional judgment to AI
- Accept responsibility for all AI-assisted work product
Billing Considerations Under RPC 1.5#
Washington RPC 1.5 requires fees to be reasonable. Advisory Opinion 202505 addresses AI billing:
Ethical Billing Practices#
Permissible:
- Billing for time spent developing AI prompts
- Charging for time reviewing and verifying AI outputs
- Billing for editing and improving AI-generated content
- Charging for the actual time invested in work product
Prohibited:
- Billing for time not actually worked
- Charging for hypothetical “manual” hours saved by AI
- Misrepresenting AI work as entirely manual
- Fees unreasonable in light of AI efficiency
Fee Arrangement Best Practices#
- Discuss AI-assisted billing with clients before engagement
- Consider whether AI efficiencies warrant adjusted fees
- Document time actually spent on AI-assisted work
- Ensure fee arrangements reflect the value provided
Washington Court AI Requirements#
Washington Supreme Court#
The Washington Supreme Court oversees attorney conduct through the Rules of Professional Conduct and may issue orders addressing AI use. Attorneys should monitor court announcements.
Superior and District Courts#
Washington trial courts may issue local rules or standing orders regarding AI:
- Check local court rules for AI disclosure requirements
- Comply with any certification requirements
- Monitor for updates to local practices
Federal Courts in Washington#
The U.S. District Courts for the Western and Eastern Districts of Washington follow federal AI guidance:
- Review standing orders on AI disclosure
- Comply with federal certification requirements
- Monitor evolving federal court AI policies
Comprehensive Compliance Checklist#
Pre-Adoption Assessment:
- Research the AI tool’s capabilities and limitations
- Review Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
- Assess data security and confidentiality protections
- Determine training data usage policies
- Test the tool against known-correct outputs
Before Each Use: 6. Assess whether AI is appropriate for this task 7. Consider confidentiality implications 8. Determine whether client consent is needed 9. Ensure you can verify outputs
During AI Use: 10. Use clear, specific prompts 11. Avoid unnecessary confidential information input 12. Maintain professional judgment 13. Document your AI use and process
Post-Output Verification: 14. Verify all case citations 15. Check quoted language against originals 16. Shepardize/KeyCite all authority 17. Review for consistency with Washington law 18. Edit for accuracy and client-specific needs 19. Confirm compliance with court rules
Billing Compliance: 20. Track and bill only actual time 21. Don’t charge for AI “saved time” 22. Ensure fees are reasonable 23. Disclose AI billing practices to clients
Supervision Protocol: 24. Maintain firm AI policies 25. Train attorneys and staff 26. Implement verification requirements 27. Monitor compliance 28. Update policies as technology evolves
Washington RPC Reference Table#
| Rule | Obligation | AI Application |
|---|---|---|
| RPC 1.1 | Competence | Understand AI; verify all outputs |
| RPC 1.3 | Diligence | AI enhances, doesn’t replace, thorough work |
| RPC 1.4 | Communication | Disclose AI use when material |
| RPC 1.5 | Fees | Bill actual time; maintain reasonable fees |
| RPC 1.6 | Confidentiality | Protect client data in AI systems |
| RPC 3.3 | Candor | Verify all content before court submission |
| RPC 5.1 | Supervisory Duties | Establish policies; ensure compliance |
| RPC 5.3 | Nonlawyer Assistance | Supervise AI like nonlawyer staff |
Malpractice Considerations#
Washington attorneys should address malpractice implications:
Insurance Review:
- Check policy coverage for AI-related claims
- Disclose AI practices to insurers as required
- Document verification as evidence of reasonable care
Risk Management:
- Implement verification protocols firm-wide
- Maintain records of AI use and verification
- Establish clear policies to demonstrate professional standards
- Train all personnel on AI risks and requirements
Frequently Asked Questions#
What is Washington Advisory Opinion 202505?
Does Washington require AI disclosure to clients?
Can Washington attorneys use generative AI for legal research?
How does Washington treat AI confidentiality obligations?
What are AI supervision requirements in Washington?
How should Washington attorneys bill for AI-assisted work?
Resources#
Washington Resources#
- WSBA Advisory Opinion 202505 - AI guidance
- Washington Rules of Professional Conduct
- WSBA Ethics Line
- WSBA Advisory Opinions Database
National Resources#
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 - National guidance on attorney AI use
- [AI Hallucinations in Courts](/industries/legal-hallucinations/) - Sanctions cases and verification requirements
- State-by-State AI Ethics Guide - Compare guidance across jurisdictions
Questions About AI Ethics Compliance in Washington?
Washington's Advisory Opinion 202505 provides comprehensive guidance on ethical AI use. Understanding your obligations under the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct and this advisory opinion is essential for compliant AI integration in your practice.
Consult a Legal Ethics Attorney