Can lawyers use AIYes, with checking, confidentiality and responsibility staying with the lawyer

What courts and regulators have said

In Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y., 22 June 2023), Judge Castel wrote that there is “nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance”, but that existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure their filings are accurate. The court found the lawyers submitted non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations created by ChatGPT, and imposed a $5,000 penalty (Opinion and Order on Sanctions).

US Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) says that by presenting a paper to the court, an attorney certifies that, after a reasonable inquiry, the legal contentions are warranted by existing law and the factual contentions have evidentiary support (Rule 11).

In England and Wales, the Bar Council’s updated guidance (26 November 2025) says barristers should understand these systems and use them responsibly, ensuring accuracy and compliance, and that ultimate responsibility for legal work remains with the barrister. It lists hallucinations and confidentiality among the key risks (Bar Council). The judiciary’s AI guidance for judicial office holders reminds them not to enter private information into public AI tools (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary).

Many courts, bar associations and regulators have their own rules or standing orders. We did not survey them, so check yours.