AI ethics guide · North Carolina
Can a North Carolina lawyer put client documents into an AI tool?
What 2024 FEO 1 says about client confidentiality, and the other duties that come with using AI.
Not legal advice. This is a plain-English summary of 2024 FEO 1, written by the team that makes ClientSafeAI, and it hasn't been reviewed by a lawyer. Read the source itself, and ask the North Carolina bar's ethics hotline if you're unsure how it applies to you.
| Document | 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice |
|---|---|
| Issued by | North Carolina State Bar |
| Date | November 1, 2024 |
| Status | Advisory formal ethics opinion |
The short answer
Yes, with reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure under Rule 1.6(c). The lawyer must be satisfied that a third-party AI program is secure enough before client documents go into it. It also says that, as of the opinion’s date, lawyers should generally avoid putting client-specific information into publicly available AI tools.
What it says about confidentiality
North Carolina’s opinion applies Rule 1.6(c): a lawyer must make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information. For AI, the key caution is about publicly available tools, some of which retain and train on what users put in. As of the opinion’s date, it says lawyers should generally avoid putting client-specific information into publicly available AI resources.
Third-party AI services also bring in Rule 5.3 on nonlawyer assistance: the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure the service is compatible with their professional obligations. Running the tool on the firm’s own servers doesn’t change that duty. Vetting the vendor is part of the lawyer’s job, not an optional extra.
The opinion’s approach to telling clients is tiered. Generally a lawyer needn’t tell the client about AI used for ordinary tasks such as legal research or practice management. But delegating substantive tasks to an AI tool is treated like outsourcing legal work to a nonlawyer, which calls for the client’s informed consent.
Lawyer may not bill a client for three hours of work when only one hour of work was actually experienced.
North Carolina 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1
The other duties it covers
| Competence | Educate yourself on AI’s benefits and risks, in line with the duty to keep up with technology. |
|---|---|
| Fees | Bill actual time. A flat fee is an alternative if it isn’t clearly excessive and the client consents to it. |
| Candor | A lawyer can’t abrogate their responsibilities under the Rules by relying on AI. |
In practice
- Keep client-specific information out of publicly available AI tools.
- Vet AI vendors the way you would any nonlawyer service provider.
- Get informed consent before handing substantive work on a matter to an AI tool.
- Keep hourly billing to time actually worked.
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 2024 FEO 1, written by the team that makes ClientSafeAI, and it hasn't been reviewed by a lawyer. Read the source itself, and ask the North Carolina bar's ethics hotline if you're unsure how it applies to you.