Skip to content

Regulation Tracker / Other

Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) in Anwaltskanzleien — Leitfaden und Checkliste für KI-Dienstleister

Österreichischer Rechtsanwaltskammertag (Austrian Bar), Ausschuss IT und Digitalisierung

last revised 2025-09-23last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →

GuidanceIn forceConfidentialityVerification dutyCompetenceSupervisionRecord-keeping

map categories:Bar guidance on generative AIVendor due diligenceClient data in AI toolsDuty to verify AI outputTechnological competenceSupervision of AI workMandatory AI trainingData protection and legal AI

The Austrian Bar's four-page guide of September 2025 on using AI in law firms, with an annexed checklist that an AI provider must sign before a firm may instruct it. It applies § 9(2) RAO confidentiality and the binding § 40(3) RL-BA service-provider requirements to AI suppliers and makes staff AI competence a precondition of use.

Applies to
lawyers, firms, providers
Effective
See version history
Current version
Stand September 2025 · 23 Sept 2025
Last verified
04 Sept 2026
Official text
www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_le…

What the document requires

  • Entering mandate-related or confidential information into public or unsecured AI systems breaks confidentiality (§ 9(2) RAO) and is professionally impermissible.
  • Lawyers may instruct only AI providers that meet § 40(3) RL-BA; otherwise only abstract, anonymous questions without any client link may be asked.
  • The provider must confirm in writing: no use of firm input for model training, secure deletion, an Art. 28 GDPR processor agreement, EU or adequacy-country hosting (e.g. Switzerland, UK), equivalent compliance by sub-processors, and immediate notification if searched by police.
  • The police-notification duty falls away for sub-processors that store data only briefly and process it fully automatically without human access (§ 40(3)(4) RL-BA).
  • 'Die anwaltliche Sorgfaltspflicht erfordert eine ausnahmslose Überprüfung und Verifizierung aller KI-generierten Ergebnisse'; final responsibility stays with the lawyer.
  • AI use is permitted only where staff have AI competence, maintained by regular training, under a binding internal directive naming permitted tools, prohibited data and a responsible person.

Version history

VersionDateWhat changedSource
Stand September 2025current2025-09-23Issued by the ÖRAK's IT and digitalisation committee and distributed with the Anwaltsblatt.official

Sources

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) in Anwaltskanzleien — Leitfaden und Checkliste für KI-Dienstleister" (Österreichischer Rechtsanwaltskammertag (Austrian Bar), Ausschuss IT und Digitalisierung, Stand September 2025, 2025-09-23), safelegalai.com/regulation/other/at-oerak-ki-leitfaden-anwaltskanzleien (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.

More official documents in Other