Right Discovery Staff Writer
Generative AI is rapidly becoming woven into the fabric of the modern legal workspace, quietly reshaping how attorneys approach eDiscovery, investigations, and litigation strategy. What once felt experimental is now operational—embedded in platforms, workflows, and daily decision-making. As adoption accelerates, so does the need for a clear, principled understanding of how GenAI fits within long-standing ethical obligations. Kevin M Clark has spent years at the intersection of technology, investigations, and legal responsibility, and his perspective underscores a critical point: innovation must move in lockstep with ethics.
At the center of responsible GenAI use are four enduring ethical pillars—competence, confidentiality, supervision, and candor. These principles are not new, but the way they apply to AI-driven tools demands renewed attention. When lawyers rely on GenAI to accelerate analysis, surface insights, or support strategic decisions, they must do so with intention, awareness, and accountability. Practical examples, emerging use cases, and real-world risks all point to the same conclusion: ethical compliance is not a constraint on progress—it is what makes progress defensible.
Generative AI is no longer a future-state concept; it is actively shaping how legal work gets done today. Attorneys are using AI-enabled tools to review documents at scale, analyze patterns across massive datasets, and refine litigation strategy with unprecedented speed. But efficiency alone is not the measure of success. With every new capability comes a corresponding responsibility, and one truth remains constant: ethical duties cannot be delegated to technology.
AI may assist, accelerate, and augment legal work—but it does not replace professional judgment. It does not assume responsibility, and it does not answer to the court. In the legal industry, accountability rests squarely with the people using the tools. GenAI is just that—a tool. The decisions, validations, and ethical consequences remain human, shared by attorneys, legal teams, and the professionals who choose how and when AI is deployed.
Responsible adoption of Generative AI in legal practice rests on four foundational ethical pillars: competence, confidentiality, supervision and responsibility, and candor and accuracy. These principles have long guided professional conduct, but GenAI introduces new contexts in which they must be actively applied. Rather than standing in the way of innovation, ethics function as guardrails—providing the structure attorneys need to leverage AI confidently while safeguarding clients, preserving the integrity of the judicial process, and meeting their professional obligations. When approached thoughtfully, ethical alignment becomes a catalyst for sustainable, defensible AI use.
The duty of competence has evolved alongside the tools used to deliver legal services. Both ABA Model Rule 1.1 and California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 make it clear that technological competence is no longer optional—it is an expected component of effective representation. Lawyers are not required to become technologists, but they are required to understand the tools they rely on, including how those tools work, the risks they introduce, and the limitations they carry.
As GenAI becomes more deeply integrated into eDiscovery, analytics, and investigative workflows, competence now includes the ability to supervise, validate, and explain AI-assisted outputs. Using AI responsibly means knowing when it adds value, when it requires human oversight, and when reliance without verification crosses an ethical line.
Artificial intelligence can assist legal work, but it does not replace professional judgment—and it does not diminish supervisory responsibility. Under California Rules 5.1 and 5.3, attorneys are obligated to supervise not only subordinate lawyers and nonlawyer assistants, but also the technology deployed in legal services. The implication is straightforward: when an AI system produces an error, that error belongs to the attorney who relied on it.
AI may accelerate workflows, but accountability for accuracy, reasonableness, and compliance with court rules remains firmly human. Treating AI as an autonomous actor creates ethical risk; treating it as a tool to be actively managed, reviewed, and explained aligns innovation with responsibility.
One of the most widely discussed risks of Generative AI is its tendency to produce confident—but incorrect—outputs. Hallucinated case law, fabricated citations, and oversimplified summaries are not theoretical concerns; they are documented failures that carry serious ethical consequences. The duty of candor to the court requires attorneys to independently verify every factual and legal assertion, regardless of how persuasive or polished an AI-generated response may appear.
AI errors are not “AI problems.” They are lawyer errors. Responsible use of GenAI demands rigorous validation processes, clear documentation, and a disciplined refusal to substitute convenience for accuracy.
Ethical frameworks matter most when they are applied to real-world legal work. Today, AI is already being used across eDiscovery and investigative workflows, including early case assessment, relevance analysis, privilege review, hot document identification, and trial preparation. When deployed thoughtfully, these tools can enhance efficiency and insight without compromising ethical standards.
The challenge lies in striking the right balance—leveraging AI’s capabilities while maintaining transparency, defensibility, and human oversight. Practical examples and emerging best practices demonstrate that responsible AI adoption is not about doing more with less oversight, but about doing better work with the right controls in place.
At Right Discovery, we believe that innovation in law isn’t about replacing expertise, it’s about amplifying it. We offer a variety of CLE’s similar to this topic, that will give you practical strategies to strengthen client service, manage risk, and create measurable impact in your practice. Contact us at solutions@rightdiscovery.com to learn more.
Topics: generative ai ethics cle, ai in eDiscovery, ethical use of ai in law, aba model rule 1.1 technology competence, california rule of professional conduct ai, legal ai confidentiality risks, supervising ai in legal practice, ai hallucinations legal ethics, ai and duty of candor, genai investigations legal, ai best practices for attorneys, legal technology ethics cle