AI ethics guide · Kentucky
Can a Kentucky lawyer put client documents into an AI tool?
What Opinion E-457 says about client confidentiality, and the other duties that come with using AI.
Not legal advice. This is a plain-English summary of Opinion E-457, written by the team that makes ClientSafeAI, and it hasn't been reviewed by a lawyer. Read the source itself, and ask the Kentucky bar's ethics hotline if you're unsure how it applies to you.
| Document | KBA Ethics Opinion E-457 |
|---|---|
| Issued by | Kentucky Bar Association, Board of Governors |
| Date | March 15, 2024 |
| Status | Advisory formal ethics opinion |
The short answer
Yes. Kentucky’s Opinion E-457 says there’s no ethical duty to tell a client about routine use of AI, with some exceptions. But the continuing duty to safeguard confidential information still applies, and Opinion E-457 tells lawyers to check each AI product’s terms of use for whether inputs are shared with third parties or used to train the model.
What it says about confidentiality
E-457 is set out as seven questions and answers, which makes it one of the easiest opinions to apply. On confidentiality, the answer is that the lawyer has a continuing duty to safeguard client information when using AI.
It is specific about the risk: some providers’ generative training could expose confidential information. So the opinion recommends reading each AI product’s terms of use to see whether data you enter is shared with third parties or used to train the model.
Unlike Florida or the ABA, Kentucky puts less weight on telling the client up front. It finds no ethical duty to disclose rote use of AI, unless the work is being outsourced to a third party, the client is being charged for the AI’s cost, or a court rule requires disclosure.
Costs incurred in learning about AI, in maintaining AI provided services, and keeping up to date with changes in its use, should be considered like any other continuing legal education expense, and a part of the lawyer’s overhead.
KBA Ethics Opinion E-457
The other duties it covers
| Competence | Lawyers have a duty to keep abreast of AI. |
|---|---|
| Fees | Consider reducing fees if AI materially cuts the time and effort a matter takes. AI costs can be charged only if agreed in advance and confirmed in writing, and learning costs are overhead. |
| Candor | Review court rules on AI and verify every AI-assisted filing. |
| Supervision | Managing lawyers must make sure AI policies and training exist. |
In practice
- Read the terms of use of every AI product for data sharing and training before client data goes in.
- Tell the client when AI work is outsourced, when you charge for AI, or when a court rule requires it.
- Agree any AI charges in writing up front, and don’t bill for learning the tool.
- Put a written AI policy in place for the firm.
How this compares with ABA Formal Opinion 512
The ABA's national opinion requires a client's informed consent before information relating to the representation goes into a self-learning AI tool, and says boilerplate consent in an engagement letter isn't enough. Read the Opinion 512 summary and firm checklist.
Keep client documents on a server that’s only yours
A Private AI Workspace runs on a GPU server ordered for one firm. Your documents, the AI model and the database stay on it, it never trains on your files, and answers cite the page they came from. It costs $499 a month, flat.
Sources
Spotted something out of date? Tell us and we'll fix it.
Not legal advice. This is a plain-English summary of Opinion E-457, written by the team that makes ClientSafeAI, and it hasn't been reviewed by a lawyer. Read the source itself, and ask the Kentucky bar's ethics hotline if you're unsure how it applies to you.