By Andrea Martin, Esq. and April Garbuz, Esq.
In recent years, few technologies have transformed industries as profoundly as Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI (GenAI) tools. These advancements are reshaping business operations, automating tasks, and streamlining complex processes. The legal profession is no exception. Just as lawyers once adapted to word processing, email, and online legal research—tools that initially seemed disruptive but ultimately became indispensable—AI represents the next evolution in legal technology.
Modern lawyers have an ethical obligation to embrace AI. The duty of competence has long required attorneys to understand and use relevant technology to serve their clients effectively. AI is no different. Its growing role in commercial litigation is not just about efficiency and cost reduction—it is about upholding professional responsibility in an era where technology is inextricably linked to legal practice. The American Bar Association weighed in on this issue with Formal Opinion 512 last summer, reminding lawyers to mind ethics rules while using GenAI.
Increased Efficiency and Cost Reduction
AI enhances the speed and accuracy of tasks essential to commercial litigation. Document review and e-discovery, widely dreaded as labor-intensive processes, are now significantly improved by AI-driven tools. For example, AI-powered platforms can quickly extract key data, summarize documents, and identify patterns across vast datasets. These capabilities streamline privilege log preparation and reduce time spent on manual review—ultimately benefiting clients through lower costs and faster case resolution. If embraced, AI frees lawyers to focus on the more strategic, high-impact, and exciting aspects of legal practice.
AI-assisted tools are also revolutionizing legal research by enabling attorneys to navigate caselaw and statutory frameworks with unprecedented speed. Predictive analytics takes this even a step further, helping lawyers assess case outcomes based on historical data. By automating these tasks, AI frees attorneys from the time-consuming aspects of sifting through vast databases of legal precedents, to focus on the more strategic, high-impact, and exciting aspects of legal practice.
Moreover, AI tools are reshaping legal drafting. GenAI-powered platforms assist in generating contracts, pleadings, and legal memoranda, all while reducing human error and increasing efficiency. Law firms are adopting GenAI tools that have proven instrumental in drafting, summarizing, and analyzing legal documents. GenAI’s capabilities enhance both the accuracy and efficiency of these tasks, reducing the chances of costly errors while increasing overall productivity. GenAI also aids in creating chronologies to visualize timelines and creating charts to track litigation claims, allowing attorneys to focus on higher-level legal analysis and client interaction. These tools do not replace lawyers: They empower them. By handling repetitive tasks, AI allows attorneys to concentrate on high-level legal reasoning, client advocacy, and case strategy.
These tools help firms and clients manage risks more effectively, providing data-driven insights that assist in litigation strategy. Ultimately, the integration of AI not only enhances the firm’s internal operations but also results in a more cost-effective service for clients, with the savings often passed on to them. The history of legal technology adoption—from typewriters to Trellis—demonstrates that innovation, when used responsibly, makes lawyers better at their jobs. AI is no exception.
Ethical Considerations Under the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Responsibility
As with any technological advancement, there are ethical considerations inherent in the use of AI that must be addressed within the framework of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. For example, the duty to provide competent representation, maintain client confidentiality, and exercise proper supervision all apply to AI use.
Competent Representation (Rule 1.1)
Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent representation, which includes staying current with technological developments. Today, that means understanding AI tools well enough to use them effectively. Lawyers must recognize both the strengths and limitations of AI—ensuring that outputs are reliable and that AI-generated insights are critically evaluated.
AI tools, while sophisticated, are not infallible. They are only as good as the data they are trained on and the parameters they are given. Thus, attorneys must exercise caution in their use, ensuring that they understand both the strengths and the weaknesses of the tools at their disposal.
Just as lawyers had to learn how to use Westlaw, LexisNexis, and electronic court filings, they now have a duty to familiarize themselves with AI-assisted legal tools. Ignoring AI is not just a missed opportunity—it may be an ethical violation. A lawyer who refuses to engage with AI when it offers a demonstrable advantage risks falling short of their duty of competence.
Confidentiality (Rule 1.6)
Client confidentiality remains paramount in an AI-driven legal practice. AI tools process vast amounts of data, raising concerns about security, unauthorized disclosure, and data privacy. Lawyers must carefully evaluate the platforms they use, ensuring that sensitive client information is protected through encryption, secure storage, and vendor compliance with legal industry standards.
Additionally, attorneys should be transparent with clients about AI usage. If AI tools are used in case strategy, document review, or communications, clients have a right to understand the risks and benefits. In some cases, obtaining informed client consent may be necessary.
Supervision of AI and Non-Lawyer Assistants (Rules 5.1 & 5.3)
Rules 5.1 and 5.3 impose a duty to supervise both human assistants and AI tools. While AI can automate certain legal tasks, it cannot replace the judgment and experience of a lawyer. Attorneys must review AI-generated outputs to ensure accuracy and compliance with professional standards.
AI hallucinations—instances where AI produces incorrect or misleading information—underscore the importance of oversight. Lawyers cannot blindly rely on AI-generated content. Instead, they must verify AI-assisted research, review AI-drafted documents, and ensure that the technology is used as an aid rather than a substitute for legal expertise.
The American Bar Association’s Formal Opinion 512 explicitly recognizes that AI can enhance legal practice, but it also makes clear that lawyers must supervise and validate AI-generated work. Just as attorneys remain responsible for paralegals’ work product, they bear the same responsibility when using AI. There have already been several instances of lawyers blindly relying on AI generated research and improperly submitting filings to courts that contain inaccurate or false information. See, e.g., Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:23-CV-118-KHR, 2025 WL 608073, at *8 (D. Wyo. Feb. 25, 2025) (revoking a lawyer’s admission to practice in the case and fining attorneys $5,000 for citing non-existent cases generated by AI); Kohls v. Ellison et al., No. 24-cv-3754, 2025 WL 66514, at *5 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025) (throwing out an erroneous expert declaration prepared by a Stanford University expert on AI in litigation over the state’s law on deepfakes, finding that the fake, AI-generated sources in his declaration shattered his credibility); Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1:23-CV-281, 2024 WL 4882651, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024) (sanctioning an attorney for submitting a court filing with nonexistent cases and quotations generated by artificial intelligence).
Duty to Communicate (Rule 1.4)
AI also affects the lawyer’s duty to communicate with clients. As AI adoption grows, clients may have questions about how these tools are being used in their cases. Attorneys should proactively explain AI’s role in legal processes, particularly when it impacts decision-making, confidentiality, or case strategy.
Transparency builds trust. Clients who understand how AI is being used—and why—are more likely to appreciate its benefits rather than fear its implications. Lawyers should be prepared to discuss AI’s capabilities, its limitations, and the safeguards in place to ensure ethical and effective use.
Best Practices for Integrating AI in Litigation While Maintaining Ethical Compliance
Law firms that embrace AI responsibly should implement best practices to ensure ethical compliance and maximize the technology’s benefits.
Develop Clear AI Policies: Firms should establish guidelines on AI usage, addressing security, confidentiality, and oversight. Attorneys and staff should follow standardized protocols when integrating AI into litigation workflows.
Provide Ongoing Training: Lawyers must stay informed about AI developments and ethical considerations. Regular training ensures that attorneys remain competent in AI-assisted legal practice.
Exercise Human Oversight: AI is a tool, not an autonomous decision-maker. Lawyers must critically evaluate AI-generated content and ensure that it aligns with legal and ethical standards.
Maintain Client Transparency: Attorneys should communicate AI usage to clients where relevant, addressing any concerns and ensuring informed decision-making.
Conclusion: AI as an Ethical Obligation, Not an Option
AI is not a passing trend—it is the next step in the evolution of legal practice. Just as lawyers once debated the ethics of email, electronic research, and cloud-based case management, AI now demands thoughtful integration. The ethical rules governing legal practice do not prohibit AI—they require its responsible use.
A lawyer who ignores AI risks inefficiency, higher costs for clients, and a failure to meet the duty of competence. By contrast, lawyers who embrace AI as a tool—one that enhances, rather than replaces, human judgment—position themselves to provide better, faster, and more cost-effective representation.
The practice of law has always adapted to technological change. AI is no different. It is not a disruption to fear but a tool to master—one that, when used responsibly, makes good lawyers even better.
Andrea Martin is a Business Litigation Partner at Troutman Pepper Locke. Andrea’s practice covers business torts, including misrepresentation and fraud, as well as contractual disputes involving issues in contract formation, interpretation, performance, and payment. Andrea’s practice also includes labor and employment disputes, severance, intra-business disputes, independent contractor status disputes, enforcement and interpretation of non-compete agreements and wage and commission disputes.
Prior to joining Troutman Pepper Locke, she was co-chair of the business litigation and dispute litigation group and general counsel at another law firm, where she managed claims against the firm and counseled attorneys on various ethical and other issues pertaining to client engagements.
April Garbuz is an associate in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Business Litigation practice. She earned her J.D., cum laude, from Suffolk University Law School, where she was a member of the Journal of High Technology Law, and her bachelor’s degree from the University of Connecticut, where she majored in physiology and neurobiology.
April represents clients in a broad range of civil disputes, including contractual and warranty disputes, legal malpractice, eviction proceedings, intellectual property, defamation, and privacy matters.
