Law Firms

No. ABA formal opinions interpret the ABA Model Rules but do not bind lawyers on their own. State bars and courts often treat them as persuasive, and some states, including California, have issued their own generative AI guidance. Confirm which rules and opinions apply in your state with ethics counsel.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 ties its consent requirement to self-learning tools that can retain or reuse inputs. For tools contractually barred from training on or retaining client data, the analysis turns on the matter, the task and the tool's risks. Rule 1.4 may still call for telling the client, for example when the client asks or AI output will drive a significant decision.

Many firms do, using an approved business-grade tool and placeholders in place of real client names, amounts and account numbers. The AI drafts the release, closing letter or disbursement summary template, and staff fill the real figures inside the trust accounting or practice management system. California guidance says confidential client information should not go into AI tools that lack adequate confidentiality and security protections.

It can be excluded. In Washington v. Puloka, the King County Superior Court excluded an AI-enhanced version of a short phone video in a 2024 murder case, applying the Frye general acceptance test. The court found the enhancement tool was not accepted in the forensic video community and added detail that was not in the original. The original video remained available.

Confirm the plan's agreement bars the provider from training on firm inputs, sets a defined retention period with deletion, limits human review, lists subprocessors and restricts disclosure to third parties. Also confirm sign-in through the firm's identity provider with multifactor authentication and exportable audit logs. California's State Bar guidance tells lawyers to review terms of use to see how a product uses inputs.

Review the master services agreement, the data processing addendum, any AI-specific product terms, the privacy policy, the acceptable use policy, the subprocessor list and the vendor's security documentation. Confirm which plan the terms apply to, since consumer and enterprise plans can differ on training and retention. ABA Formal Opinion 512 says lawyers should understand these terms or consult someone who has.

It is a documented review of how an AI vendor handles client information: what it collects, how long it keeps it, whether it trains on it, who can see it and how it is secured. For a law firm, the contract review is the core of that assessment, alongside security documentation such as a SOC 2 Type II report.

California State Bar Formal Opinion 2010-179 says using a public wireless connection risks the duties of confidentiality and competence unless the attorney takes precautions, such as encrypting the connection and files and running a personal firewall. For highly sensitive matters it says the attorney may need to avoid public wireless or get the client's informed consent. A cellular hotspot avoids the shared network entirely.

Business Premium includes manual sensitivity labeling, so users can apply labels in Office apps and admins can publish label policies. Microsoft's Purview service description lists automatic labeling and default labels for SharePoint document libraries under Microsoft 365 E5, Office 365 E5 or the Microsoft 365 E5 Information Protection and Governance add-on. Confirm current licensing with your Microsoft partner before designing around those features.

No. Rule 10.430 governs the California courts themselves: their staff and judicial officers. It required each court that allows generative AI to adopt a use policy by December 15, 2025. Attorney duties come from other sources, including SB 574, which adds an attorney disclosure and citation verification duty starting January 1, 2027, and any judge's own standing order.

Not yet. The State Bar's ethics committee has proposed AI-specific comments to rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3, and the second public comment period closed August 6, 2026. They take effect only after Board of Trustees and California Supreme Court approval. Separately, SB 574 sets statutory AI duties for attorneys starting January 1, 2027.

Yes. Rule 1.16(e)(1) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct requires the lawyer to promptly release all client materials and property at the client's request, subject to any protective order, non-disclosure agreement, statute or regulation. That covers items such as correspondence, pleadings and deposition transcripts, whether or not the client has paid for them. The firm may keep copies at its own expense.

Absent an earlier agreement, State Bar Formal Opinion 2001-157 says the lawyer should make reasonable efforts to obtain the former client's consent before any disposition. If the client cannot be located or does not respond, items may be destroyed unless the law requires keeping them or destruction would prejudice the client. Engagement letter terms on file destruction can help for future matters.

For most civil file items, the State Bar's proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 19-0004 says yes, unless losing the physical copy would prejudice the client. Originals and client property must still be retained, and an original will cannot be digitized and the paper purged. The opinion was circulated for public comment in 2026, with comments due July 10, 2026, and has not been adopted.

California's Rules of Professional Conduct set no fixed period. State Bar Formal Opinion 2001-157 says retention cannot be measured by a fixed time period. The five-year rule in rule 1.15(d)(5) covers trust account records of client funds and property. Originals, client property and criminal files carry stricter limits and generally cannot be destroyed without the client's consent.

Under State Bar rule 2.5, the Client Trust Account Protection Program, lawyers responsible for client funds must register each trust account, certify that they know and follow the trust account rules, and complete an annual self-assessment of their trust accounting practices. It is due by the lawyer's annual license fee deadline. The rule text does not mention wire fraud specifically.

The State Bar's Formal Opinion 2007-172 concluded that a lawyer may accept card payment for fees not yet earned, though not for advances for costs. That opinion predates current rule 1.15(a), which requires advances for fees, costs and expenses to be held in trust, and a State Bar issue outline flags it for possible reconsideration. Firms should confirm their setup with ethics counsel.

State Bar of California Formal Opinion 2020-203 says that after a breach a lawyer must make a reasonable inquiry into what occurred and notify any client whose interests have a reasonable possibility of being negatively impacted, as soon as reasonably possible. Whether a specific incident meets that test is a question for the firm and its ethics counsel.

Comment [1] to California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 says the duty of competence includes keeping abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. How that applies to a particular firm's software and systems is a question for ethics counsel.

California's rule 1.6(a) requires informed consent before a lawyer reveals confidential client information, and rule 1.0.1(e) defines informed consent as agreement after the lawyer explains the circumstances and material risks. Rule 1.6 does not say the consent must be written. Many firms still document it in writing, because a signed record is the clearest evidence of what the client was told.

Not with a bare claim under the current federal rules. Once the proponent clears Rule 901(a), authenticity disputes generally go to the weight of the evidence for the jury. The federal rules committee's working draft would require the challenger to present evidence sufficient to support a finding of fabrication before the court looks further.

Only to the extent the wall is enforced in Microsoft 365. Copilot surfaces content a user already has permission to view and honors usage rights from encrypted sensitivity labels. It has no knowledge of a firm's conflicts system or screening memos, so a screened lawyer with leftover access to a matter site or a sharing link can get that content back in a Copilot answer.

No. Microsoft states that prompts, responses and data accessed through Microsoft Graph are not used to train the foundation models behind Microsoft 365 Copilot. That answers the training question only. Copilot still shows each user whatever they already have permission to open, so screens and matter permissions need to be correct before rollout.

It depends on the wording of the specific order. Some orders reach any generative AI used in preparing a filing, while others focus on AI that drafted text. Grammar and spell checkers are often carved out; the Southern District of California bankruptcy court's form says they are typically not covered. Read the operative order for each judge and record how it defines covered use.

Not on its own. Detection tools return a probability, and their output can be challenged like any expert opinion. NIST describes detection, watermarking and provenance tracking as separate approaches with different limits. Provenance evidence, such as the original file, intact metadata, a hash value recorded at collection and a documented chain of custody, usually carries more weight.

No. Audio, video and images are authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. In May 2026 the federal Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules concluded that a deepfake amendment to Rule 901 was not warranted at that time, kept a working draft in reserve, and deferred the related proposed Rule 707 on machine-generated evidence for further study.

Not immediately, and not always. Deleting a chat removes it from the account view, but vendor terms decide how long it stays on their systems. OpenAI, for example, says deleted ChatGPT chats are scheduled for permanent deletion within 30 days, subject to security and legal exceptions. Document the conversation and the account's settings before deleting, because the firm will need that record for the privilege and client notice analysis.

Yes, but only after the firm teaches it the format. Built-in DLP patterns cover things like Social Security and card numbers, not a firm's internal numbering. In Microsoft Purview, a custom sensitive information type pairs a pattern for the number with supporting keywords nearby, and exact data match can compare content against a hashed export of real client and matter records.

Test client and matter numbers, document profiles and metadata, ethical walls and matter-level security, version history and audit trails, email filing from Outlook, and integrations with billing and Office. Confirm that any trust accounting records stored on the old system arrived complete and readable before the old server is retired and its drives are sanitized.

North Carolina's 2020 Formal Ethics Opinion 5 said no: a lawyer does not meet the duty to warn clients by including warning language in an email footer unless the lawyer directs the client's attention to it. California has no matching opinion, but the State Bar recommends confirming wire instructions with clients in advance, which a footer alone does not do.

Not if it is boilerplate. ABA Formal Opinion 512 says informed consent is required before information relating to a representation goes into a self-learning generative AI tool, and that general boilerplate provisions in engagement letters are not adequate. Consent should explain the specific tool, the risks and the benefits, so the client can make a real decision.

For full detail, yes. Microsoft's licensing table shows risk-based Conditional Access policies require Entra ID P2. On Free and P1, the risky sign-ins report shows no risk detail or risk level, and most detections appear only as an 'Additional risk detected' placeholder. Anonymous IP and leaked credential detections are available without P2.

Exact data match is a way for DLP to look for a firm's actual records instead of a generic pattern. The firm uploads a hashed table of values, such as matter numbers with client names, which Microsoft says can hold up to 100 million rows and be refreshed daily. A number that only looks right does not match, which cuts false alarms.

Yes. A Microsoft Purview DLP policy using the Microsoft 365 Copilot and Copilot Chat location can stop Copilot from processing files and emails with a chosen sensitivity label, such as a screened matter label. Restricted Content Discovery can also hide a whole SharePoint site from organization-wide search and Copilot. Neither changes who can open the files, so matter permissions still need to be correct.

Mostly, yes. Apps connected through Sign in with Microsoft or Google appear in the tenant's app consent records. Accounts created with an email and password leave welcome or verification messages that an Exchange Online message trace can find for up to 90 days. Card and expense records catch paid plans. Personal accounts on personal devices will not appear in any of these.

No. A hash value shows that a file has not changed since the hash was recorded, which supports the chain of custody from that point forward. It says nothing about whether the content was genuine when the firm received it, which is why the intake record of source, device and transfer method matters as well.

Yes. Business associate status comes from the definition in 45 CFR 160.103: providing a service such as legal or accounting work that involves receiving PHI from a covered entity. HHS treats business associates as directly liable for Security Rule compliance and breach notice whether or not an agreement exists. A missing agreement is a compliance gap for both the firm and its client.

No. Microsoft ended support for Office 2021 and Office LTSC 2021 on October 13, 2026. The apps may continue to function, but Microsoft no longer provides technical support, bug fixes or security updates, and it offers no extended security updates. Microsoft recommends moving to Microsoft 365 Apps, or to Office LTSC 2024 for organizations that need an on-premises version.

Yes, inside an approved tool that fits the protective order. Choose a platform under a business agreement that restricts access to the firm, does not train on firm data and supports deletion at the end of the matter. California's SB 574, operative January 1, 2027, adds a rule against entering nonpublic information into generative AI unless access is limited to the attorney and people the attorney authorizes who are obligated to keep it confidential.

The State Bar of California's generative AI guidance says a lawyer may use generative AI to work more efficiently and may charge for actual time spent, but must not charge hourly fees for the time saved by using it. The guidance also says fee agreements should explain the basis for fees and costs, including those tied to generative AI use.

ABA Formal Opinion 483 says lawyers have a duty to notify current clients of a data breach involving material client information, grounded in the duty to keep clients reasonably informed. Many outside counsel guidelines also set a specific notice window. State breach notification statutes can apply separately when personal information is involved, so each obligation needs its own check.

Sometimes. The State Bar of California's generative AI guidance says AI costs may be charged to clients in compliance with applicable law, and the fee agreement should explain the basis. ABA Formal Opinion 512 treats general office tools as overhead that should not be passed on without prior disclosure and agreement, while direct matter-specific costs can be billed at actual cost.

A written policy should name an owner, list the files that are not destroyed without client consent (originals, client property, and criminal files during the client's life), set the notice steps before destruction, explain how a litigation hold suspends the schedule, specify destruction methods for paper and every electronic copy, and require a destruction log. Engagement letters for new matters should describe the policy.

It depends on the client and the gap. A client may send follow-up questions, ask for a remediation plan with dates, limit what data or matters it sends until the gap closes, or in some cases decline to engage. The larger risk is an inaccurate answer, because a yes the firm cannot back up can become a breach of its engagement terms.

Yes, they can add to it. ABA Model Rule 1.6(c) requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information, and Comment [18] says a client may require special security measures beyond what the rule requires. Once a firm accepts a guideline, its security terms sit on top of that baseline. A client can relax a measure the rule requires only by giving informed consent.

California's ethics rules do not name MFA, so a firm can grant an exception. It should be written, approved by the managing partner or management committee, backed by compensating controls such as sign-in only from a firm-managed computer, and set to expire. ABA Formal Opinion 498 lists MFA among reasonable measures for protecting client information.

State what the firm does today, describe the gap plainly, and give either a completion date or a compensating control. An accurate partial answer is safer than an aspirational yes, because questionnaire answers can become representations the client relies on. Terms the firm cannot accept, such as very short incident notice windows, are business decisions for firm management to negotiate.

No ethics rule names a specific tool. ABA Formal Opinion 498 lists a VPN as one example of secure internet access, alongside secure Wi-Fi and secure portals, and asks lawyers to make reasonable efforts to protect client information. Zero trust network access is another way to meet the same goal, often with tighter control over what each user can reach.

The managing partner or management committee should approve it, because accepting a risk to client confidences is a management decision under California rule 5.1, which requires managerial lawyers to make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has compliance measures. IT describes the risk and compensating controls. The lawyer requesting the exception should never approve it.

Yes. Microsoft sells Extended Security Updates for Windows Server 2016 after January 12, 2027, through Azure Arc for eligible customers or through volume licensing with annual billing. ESUs keep operating system security patches coming while a migration finishes. They do not cover the DMS application itself or an unsupported SQL Server database.

Yes, for a standalone server. Microsoft's upgrade guidance allows a nonclustered Windows Server 2016 machine to upgrade in place directly to Windows Server 2019, 2022 or 2025. Cluster nodes can move only one version at a time, so a 2016 cluster node goes to 2019 first. Confirm your DMS vendor supports the target version before upgrading.

It depends on the tool. ABA Formal Opinion 512 says informed consent is required before inputting information relating to the representation into a self-learning generative AI tool, and that boilerplate engagement letter language is not enough. For tools that do not retain or learn from inputs, the analysis differs. State rules and opinions also apply, so firms should confirm their approach with ethics counsel.

For mailbox Litigation Hold in Exchange Online, Microsoft requires an Exchange Online Plan 2 license, or Plan 1 plus a separate Exchange Online Archiving license. For eDiscovery holds in Microsoft Purview, every held user needs an eligible license, and frontline plans such as Office 365 F1 and F3 don't include the rights to be the target of a hold.

If a hold is applied before the Microsoft 365 account is deleted, Microsoft converts the mailbox into an inactive mailbox and preserves its contents. Without a hold or qualifying retention policy, the mailbox follows normal deletion. A deleted user's OneDrive has a default 30-day retention period, which an active eDiscovery hold suspends.

Microsoft says it might take up to 24 hours after an eDiscovery hold is created for it to take effect. Content deleted in that window can still be purged under normal retention behavior, so a hold procedure should name who creates the hold and who confirms it applied.

One-on-one and group chats are stored in each participant's Exchange mailbox, and files shared in chat are stored in the sharer's OneDrive. Channel messages live in the team's mailbox and channel files in the team's SharePoint site. A complete hold usually covers custodians' mailboxes and OneDrive accounts plus the relevant team mailboxes and sites.

Before the expiry date, the approver reviews whether the original reason still holds and whether the compensating controls worked. The exception is then either closed, because the partner has moved to a supported sign-in method, or renewed with a new expiry date and a fresh, dated approval. An expired exception left in place is an undocumented gap again.

Yes. Microsoft Entra ID supports FIDO2 security keys for sign-in, and its built-in phishing-resistant MFA authentication strength includes them, along with Windows Hello for Business. For a partner who will not use an authenticator app on a phone, a key on a key ring often removes the reason for an exception.

In September 2025, a California Court of Appeal found that 21 of 23 case quotations in an appellant's opening brief were fabricated, apparently by AI. It sanctioned the attorney $10,000, sent the opinion to the State Bar and published it as a warning that counsel must personally read and verify every citation they file.

It depends on the guideline's wording, so read the definition section first. A ban on "generative AI" or "AI tools" can reach Copilot, AI features in research and e-discovery platforms, and meeting notetakers. If the guideline is unclear, ask the client in writing which tools it covers and file the answer with the matter before anyone uses those features.

It may still connect, but Microsoft no longer supports that connection. Microsoft's connectivity page lists October 13, 2026 as the end date for Office LTSC 2021 and warns that older versions might not get the latest features and, over time, may hit unexpected performance or reliability issues, because service updates are not tested against them.

No. Microsoft states that COM add-ins are not supported in the new Outlook for Windows but continue to work in classic Outlook. The new Outlook supports Office web add-ins instead, and it does not support VBA. Firms whose document management email filing runs as a COM add-in should confirm a web add-in path with their vendor before users switch.

A paralegal can do the first pass, pulling each authority and matching quotations, and that work helps. Under SB 574 a California filing may not contain citations the responsible attorney has not personally verified, so the signing attorney should still confirm each citation and review the cite-check log before filing. Ask counsel how the rule applies to your firm.

Keep the original native file, not a screenshot or forwarded copy. Record who provided it, when, from which device or account, and how it reached the firm. Capture a hash value at intake, store the original read-only in a restricted matter location with access logging, and work only from copies.

Usually not to a public one. Protective orders typically limit protected material to use in the case and to listed people, such as counsel, staff, experts and vendors who sign an acknowledgment, and require return or destruction at the end. A public AI account fits none of those categories. An approved tool under a business agreement may fit if it meets the order's vendor and security terms.

It can. In United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026), the court held that documents a defendant created with a public AI platform on his own were not privileged or protected work product, citing the platform's privacy policy. Courts may treat firm-managed tools under confidentiality terms differently, but the case is a strong reason to keep privileged material out of consumer AI accounts.

Yes, on managed devices. Endpoint DLP can audit, block with override or block pasting and uploading of content that matches a sensitivity label or keywords into groups of AI websites. Encrypted sensitivity labels stop other AI apps from reading labeled files, and a DLP policy for the Copilot location can keep Microsoft 365 Copilot from processing labeled items.

Yes, with the right setup. Purview has built-in sensitive information types for U.S. bank account numbers and ABA routing numbers, and an Edge for Business DLP policy on managed Windows devices can block that text from being pasted or uploaded to unmanaged AI apps. Law firms should add a custom pattern for their own trust account numbers, since the built-in type relies on nearby keywords.

SB 574 takes effect January 1, 2027. It bars attorneys from delegating the practice of law to generative AI, requires reasonable steps to verify AI output including citations, bars entering confidential or nonpublic information into an AI system unless access is restricted to the attorney and people the attorney authorizes who are obligated to keep it confidential, and requires disclosure of generative AI use to the court for documents submitted. Firms should confirm with counsel how they will apply the disclosure provision.

Yes. Alongside the attorney duties, SB 574 sets rules for arbitrators: an arbitrator may not delegate any part of the decision-making process to generative AI, and may not rely on AI-generated information outside the record without first telling the parties and, where practical, letting them comment. Firms that arbitrate matters should ask counsel how the provisions apply to their proceedings.

Starting January 1, 2027, SB 574 bars filing papers with citations the responsible attorney has not personally verified. It also requires reasonable steps to verify AI output and correct errors, limits entering confidential or nonpublic information into AI systems, prohibits delegating the practice of law to AI and requires disclosing AI use to the court for submitted documents.

Yes, starting January 1, 2027. Business and Professions Code section 6068.1, added by SB 574, requires attorneys to disclose the use of generative AI to the court for documents submitted to the court. The statute does not prescribe the form of that disclosure, so firms should settle on standard language now and ask counsel how it applies to their filings.

Usually not. Microsoft recommends keeping labels to a minimum and caps labels that apply encryption with specified users and permissions at 500 per tenant. A practical approach is four or five labels describing sensitivity, applied by matter through a labeled SharePoint site or Team with a default label on its document library. A separate encrypted label fits only walled or unusually sensitive matters.

They can. Microsoft says Copilot honors the usage rights set by label encryption, so a user without rights to an encrypted file cannot get its contents through Copilot. A DLP policy using the Copilot location can also exclude files with chosen labels from Copilot processing, although they may still appear in citations. Unlabeled files get neither protection, which is why labeling existing documents matters.

No. Microsoft Entra sign-in logs show apps that use the firm's Microsoft identity to sign in. A tool registered with an email address and its own password never appears there, and a personal account on a home computer leaves no trace in firm systems at all. Pair sign-in data with a mail trace, spending records and a short staff survey.

No. Extended Security Updates for Windows Server 2016 cover the operating system only. SQL Server 2016 has its own ESU program, which Microsoft lists in three yearly terms after extended support ended on July 14, 2026, the last running to July 2029. A DMS server running both products needs both sets of ESUs to stay patched.

Sometimes. ABA Formal Opinion 512 says lawyers must disclose their generative AI practices if a client asks how the work was done, or if the engagement agreement or the client's outside counsel guidelines require disclosure. Outside those cases, whether disclosure is needed depends on the facts, including whether client information goes into a self-learning tool.

Yes. The State Bar of California's generative AI guidance warns that outputs can be false, inaccurate or biased and says a lawyer must critically review, validate and correct both the input and the output. Treat an AI research answer as a starting point, and check every case, quotation and citation against the original source before relying on it.

Treat every change as suspect and confirm it outside the email thread that delivered it. The State Bar of California recommends verifying new instructions through existing client contact, ideally in person or by video conference. Call a number already in the matter file, never one in the message, and have a second person approve the disbursement before it is released.

Information barriers are a Microsoft Purview feature that restricts communication and collaboration between defined groups in Teams, SharePoint and OneDrive. Firms use them to keep people on opposite sides of a conflict from finding, sharing or opening each other's content. They do not restrict email, so firms pair them with Exchange mail flow rules where email separation is needed.

An ethical wall, also called an ethical screen, isolates a lawyer or staff member from a matter so they cannot see its files or discuss it with the team. California rule 1.0.1 defines "screened" as isolating a lawyer from any participation in a matter through timely procedures that are adequate under the circumstances, such as denying access to the matter's files.

A risky sign-in is a login that Microsoft Entra ID Protection flags because it does not match the user's normal pattern or resembles attacker behavior. Examples include sign-ins from anonymizing VPNs, atypical travel, password spray activity and anomalous tokens. Real-time detections can trigger Conditional Access during the sign-in, while offline detections can take up to 48 hours to appear.

A practical choice is whoever already tracks local rules and judges' procedures, often docketing or litigation support, with an attorney approving the disclosure language. The owner keeps a record of each court's requirement, its source and the date it was last checked, and updates it when a case is reassigned or a court issues a new general order.