Skip to content

Regulation Tracker / United States (state)

D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters

D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee · District of Columbia

last revised 2024-04-01last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →

Ethics opinionIn forceCompetenceVerification dutyConfidentialityClient consentSupervision

map categories:Bar guidance on generative AIBilling for AI workClient data in AI toolsDuty to verify AI outputTechnological competenceSupervision of AI workDisclosure of AI use in filings

The D.C. Bar's generative-AI opinion. Lawyers must understand that GAI generates rather than retrieves, must not rely blindly on output, must check whether a product retains inputs or feeds them to other users before entering client confidences, may bill only time actually spent, and must supervise AI use by others under Rules 5.1 and 5.3.

Applies to
lawyers, firms
Effective
See version history
Current version
Opinion 388 · 01 Apr 2024
Last verified
04 Sept 2026
Official text
www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/eth…

What the document requires

  • Competence includes understanding enough about the technology to be reasonably confident it will advance the client's interests (Rule 1.1)
  • Generative AI is not a search engine over a database; lawyers who rely blindly on GAI output do so at considerable peril
  • Before entering client confidences, determine whether the product saves the information and whether the interaction will affect answers given to future users outside the firm (Rule 1.6)
  • Where a fee is based solely on time spent, a lawyer may bill only for time actually spent even if GAI reduces it (Rule 1.5)
  • Absent prior agreement, a lawyer may not charge separately for the perceived value of GAI work but may pass through out-of-pocket GAI expenses the client agreed to pay
  • Lawyers must be attentive to candour and fairness duties, especially before tribunals that have adopted AI rules or orders (Rules 3.3, 3.4)
  • Supervisory duties under Rules 5.1 and 5.3 extend to supervised lawyers' and nonlawyers' use of GAI

Version history

VersionDateWhat changedSource
Opinion 388current2024-04-01Published April 2024; the source gives a month only (published April 2024), so the day is recorded as the 1stofficial

Sources

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388: Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters" (D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee, Opinion 388, 2024-04-01), safelegalai.com/regulation/us-state/us-dc-bar-ethics-opinion-388 (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.

More official documents in United States (state)