Generative AI and client confidentiality for US attorneys

What Florida Bar Opinion 24-1 says

The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors adopted Opinion 24-1 in January 2024. It restates the baseline: “Absent the client’s informed consent or an exception permitting disclosure, a lawyer may not reveal the information.”

On AI specifically: “It is recommended that a lawyer obtain the affected client’s informed consent prior to utilizing a third-party generative AI program if the utilization would involve the disclosure of any confidential information.” And: “If the use of a generative AI program does not involve the disclosure of confidential information to a third-party, a lawyer is not required to obtain a client’s informed consent pursuant to Rule 4-1.6.”

Other guidance to read

The American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 512 on generative AI tools in July 2024, and state bars including California have published practical guidance. Read the current versions for your jurisdiction; this page quotes only sources we opened directly.

What removing client details changes, and what it does not

Removing identifying and confidential details before using an AI tool reduces what is disclosed, which is the line Opinion 24-1 draws for consent. Whether a given redacted document still reveals confidential information is a judgment only the attorney can make: facts, strategy and deal terms can be confidential without a name attached.

Other duties are unaffected: competence, supervision, verifying citations and output, and reasonable fees.

A practical workflow

1. Classify the task: does it need confidential facts at all?
2. Remove names and identifiers, and consider whether remaining facts are confidential.
3. Obtain informed consent where disclosure remains, as your jurisdiction requires.
4. Use the reviewed copy, then restore names locally and verify the output.