Skip to content
Daily AI Intel

AI in Law & Legal Services · AI and Attorney Professional Responsibility & Ethics

Do attorneys have a duty of technological competence regarding AI?

Yes — most states have adopted a duty of technological competence requiring attorneys to understand the benefits and risks of relevant technology, including AI tools they use or encounter.

Legal disclaimer

This page provides general information only and is not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change over time. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before making decisions based on this content.

Key takeaways

  • A duty of technological competence has been added to the comment accompanying the American Bar Association's Model Rule on competence and adopted by most states in some form.
  • This duty has been interpreted to require attorneys to understand at least the general capabilities and risks of AI tools they use in practice.
  • The duty applies both to attorneys who actively use AI tools and, more broadly, to understanding technology relevant to a matter, such as opposing counsel's AI-assisted filings.
  • Failing to understand basic risks like AI hallucination has been cited in disciplinary and sanctions matters as a competence failure.

An existing duty extended to new technology

Long before generative AI became a mainstream legal tool, the American Bar Association added language to the comment accompanying Model Rule 1.1, the rule on competence, clarifying that a lawyer’s duty to provide competent representation includes keeping abreast of the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Most states have adopted some version of this comment. As generative AI tools have become common in legal practice, this existing technological competence duty has been the primary ethical framework applied to attorney AI use, rather than a wholly new rule created specifically for AI.

What this means in practice

In practical terms, this duty has been interpreted to require attorneys to have at least a general, working understanding of the AI tools they use — including known limitations like the risk of generating inaccurate or fabricated information — before relying on them for client work. It doesn’t require an attorney to become a technical expert in how a given AI model works internally, but it does mean an attorney can’t reasonably claim ignorance of well-documented risks, such as AI hallucination, as an excuse if that risk leads to an error in their work product.

Where this duty has already come up in practice

This competence duty has featured prominently in the reported cases involving attorneys sanctioned for submitting briefs containing fabricated AI-generated citations. In several of these matters, courts and disciplinary bodies pointed not just to the underlying error but to the attorney’s failure to understand and account for a well-known risk of the technology they chose to use — framing the issue as a failure of basic technological competence as much as an error of diligence.

Bottom line

Yes, most states have adopted a duty of technological competence that requires attorneys to understand the general risks and limitations of AI tools they use, and failing to do so has already been cited as a factor in real disciplinary and sanctions matters.

Important caveats

  • The exact scope and enforcement of technological competence duties varies by state, since not all states have adopted the comment in identical form.
  • This is general information, not legal advice about a specific attorney's competence obligations.

Frequently asked questions

Does this duty require attorneys to become AI experts?

No — it generally requires a reasonable, working understanding of a tool's capabilities and limitations relevant to how it's being used, not deep technical expertise.

Where does this duty come from?

It stems from an added comment to the American Bar Association's Model Rule 1.1 on competence, which most states have adopted in some form, extending the traditional competence duty to cover relevant technology.

Can failing to understand AI risks lead to discipline?

Yes — in reported sanctions cases involving fabricated AI-generated citations, failure to understand and account for known risks like AI hallucination has been treated as a competence failure alongside other ethical concerns.

Related questions

Sources

  1. [1]Model Rules of Professional Conduct and ethics guidance — American Bar Association
  2. [2]Legal industry news and technology coverage — ABA Journal
ET

Written by Editorial Team

Last updated July 28, 2026

Get one well-sourced answer a week

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.