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 →
country 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
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
| Version | Date | What changed | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion 388current | 2024-04-01 | Published April 2024; the source gives a month only (published April 2024), so the day is recorded as the 1st | official |
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 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.
More official documents in United States (state)
- California SB 574 (Chapter 858, Statutes of 2026): generative AI duties for attorneys and arbitrators · California Legislature
- Standing Order – Jury Trials · Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section (Judge Cleary)
- Standing Order for Courtroom 2309 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, Trial Section (Judge Golden)
- Standing Order, General Chancery Calendar 9 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division (Judge Horan)
- Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section (Judge Seaton)
- Amended and Restated Standing Order, Calendar 60 · Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, Mortgage Foreclosure/Mechanics Lien Section (Judge Sullivan)