Tensflare products are designed to assist legal professionals. They are not a substitute for independent legal judgment, and you remain solely responsible for the work product you deliver. This guide outlines key professional responsibility considerations when using our products.
1. Competence
Legal professionals have a duty to provide competent representation. In the context of AI-assisted legal work, competence includes:
- Understanding the capabilities and limitations of the AI tools you use
- Staying informed about how your jurisdiction's ethics rules apply to AI use
- Verifying the accuracy and completeness of AI-generated outputs before relying on them
- Understanding the data handling and security practices of the tools you use
2. Confidentiality
Protecting client confidentiality is paramount. When using Tensflare products:
- Client data submitted to our products is encrypted in transit and at rest
- We do not use your client data to train or improve our models unless you have explicitly opted in
- For enterprise customers, data processing terms are governed by the applicable Commercial Terms and Data Processing Agreement
Review our Confidentiality & Data Handling page for detailed technical information.
3. Supervision
Many jurisdictions require lawyers to supervise non-lawyer assistance. AI tools should be treated similarly. We recommend:
- Assigning a qualified legal professional to review all AI-generated outputs before use
- Establishing internal quality control procedures for AI-assisted work
- Training team members on appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI tools
- Periodic auditing of AI-assisted work product for consistency and accuracy
4. Fees and Billing
Billing for AI-assisted legal work must be reasonable and transparent. Considerations:
- Administrative costs: time spent reviewing and verifying AI outputs is generally billable as professional time
- Technology costs: subscription fees for AI tools may be passed through as disbursements or factored into rates, consistent with applicable rules in your jurisdiction
- Disclosure: when required by applicable ethical rules, disclose your use of AI tools to clients
- Efficiency: AI tools can reduce time spent on routine tasks; bill for the value of the work performed, not artificially inflated hours
5. Client Communication
Depending on your jurisdiction, you may need to:
- Inform clients about your use of AI tools in their matter
- Obtain consent where required by applicable rules
- Explain how AI tools affect confidentiality, data handling, and costs
6. Jurisdictional Guidance
The following is a non-exhaustive overview of professional conduct rules and AI guidance across key jurisdictions. This is not legal advice. You should consult your local bar association or law society for authoritative guidance applicable to your practice.
Nigeria (NBA)
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has not yet issued practice directions or rules specifically addressing AI use by legal practitioners. However, the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC) 2023 contain provisions that govern AI-assisted practice:
- Rule 14 (Duty of Competence): requires a legal practitioner to "perform all duties arising from his office or employment with the highest degree of diligence, care, and skill." This encompasses understanding the AI tools you use, verifying their outputs, and knowing their limitations.
- Rule 15 (Duty to Keep Abreast of Developments): requires maintaining competence through continuing professional development. Staying informed about AI's impact on legal practice falls within this obligation.
- Rule 19 (Confidentiality): prohibits disclosure of client communications without consent. Client data submitted to AI tools must be protected — verify the tool's data handling practices before use.
- Rule 30 (Supervision of Staff): where a practitioner delegates work, they "shall supervise such persons adequately." This likely extends to AI tools that perform work traditionally done by junior lawyers or paralegals.
The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA) imposes additional obligations when processing personal data through AI tools, including the requirement to have a lawful basis for processing and to implement appropriate security measures.
Practical guidance for Nigerian practitioners:
- Monitor NBA circulars and the Body of Benchers for emerging guidance on AI
- Consider that the Legal Practitioners' Privileges Committee (LPPC) may issue practice directions on AI use
- Ensure any AI-assisted work product is independently verified before being submitted to court or relied upon
- Maintain records of your AI use policies as evidence of compliance with competence and supervision obligations
United States (ABA and State-Level)
The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct apply to AI use through existing provisions. Key guidance includes:
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024) confirms that lawyers using AI must:
- Competence (Model Rule 1.1): make reasonable efforts to understand the capabilities and limitations of AI technology, including risks of hallucination, bias, and confidentiality breaches
- Confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6): take reasonable precautions to protect client data when using AI tools — evaluate encryption, third-party access, data retention, and whether inputs are used for model training
- Supervision (Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3): supervise AI use as you would non-lawyer assistance, including establishing policies and reviewing outputs
- Fees (Model Rule 1.5): charge reasonable fees for AI-assisted work; you may bill for time spent reviewing AI outputs at your usual rate, but may not bill artificially inflated hours
- Communication (Model Rule 1.4): keep clients reasonably informed about how AI is used in their matter where material
State-level variations (non-exhaustive):
| State | Key Guidance | Notable Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| California | State Bar Formal Opinion 2024-208 | Informed client consent required when AI use materially affects representation; duty to disclose billing for AI tools |
| New York | NYSBA Ethics Opinion 2024-1 | Lawyers must ensure AI outputs are reviewed for accuracy; duty of technological competence |
| Florida | Florida Bar Proposed Advisory Opinion 24-1 (pending final) | Must disclose AI use to clients; AI-generated work subject to same competence standards as human work |
| Texas | Texas Ethics Opinion 703 (2024) | AI tools are not "persons" requiring supervision under Rule 5.3, but lawyer remains responsible for work product |
| Illinois | ISBA Advisory Opinion 24-01 | Confidentiality obligations require evaluation of cloud-based AI tools' data handling and security measures |
| D.C. | D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion 388 (2024) | Fee arrangements must be transparent; AI use must comply with competence and confidentiality duties |
Practical guidance for US practitioners:
- Check your specific state bar's AI guidance — at least 20 states have issued formal ethics opinions on AI as of 2026
- Never assume a federal or multi-state standard; some states (e.g., California, Florida) impose disclosure or consent obligations that others do not
- Review ABA Formal Opinion 512 and your state's equivalent before adopting AI tools in client-facing work
United Kingdom (SRA and Law Society)
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regulates AI use through its existing Standards and Regulations. Key principles and guidance:
- Principle 4 (Trust and Integrity): act in a way that maintains public trust — AI use that produces inaccurate or misleading work product may breach this principle
- Principle 6 (Confidentiality and Disclosure): protect client confidentiality — the SRA has emphasised that existing duties apply regardless of the technology used
- Principle 7 (Best Interests of Clients): act in the best interests of each client — AI must not be used in a way that compromises service quality
- SRA Warning Notice on AI (2024): confirms that solicitors remain accountable for work product produced with AI assistance; firms should implement governance frameworks for AI adoption
The Law Society of England and Wales has published guidance on AI use, including:
- AI should be used as a tool to augment, not replace, professional judgment
- Firms should conduct data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) where AI processes personal data
- AI use should be documented and disclosed to clients where material
Practical guidance for UK practitioners:
- Develop a firm-wide AI governance policy as recommended by the SRA
- Conduct a DPIA before deploying AI tools that process personal data
- Verify all AI-generated legal authorities — the SRA treats incorrect citations as a conduct issue
- Monitor the SRA's thematic reviews on AI in legal services
European Union (CCBE and Member States)
The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) has published guidelines on AI use by lawyers:
- CCBE Charter on AI and Legal Practice (2024): sets out principles including human oversight, transparency, data protection, and accountability
- Lawyer's professional independence: must not be compromised by reliance on AI-generated outputs
- GDPR compliance: AI tools processing personal data must comply with GDPR requirements, including lawful basis, data protection by design, and data subject rights
Key Member State developments:
| Country | Key Guidance |
|---|---|
| France | CNB (Conseil National des Barreaux) adopted AI guidelines in 2024 requiring transparency and competence obligations |
| Germany | BRAK (Federal Bar Association) opinion confirms existing professional duties apply to AI, with emphasis on confidentiality |
| Netherlands | NOvA published AI principles in 2024 focusing on lawyer accountability and client protection |
| Ireland | Law Society of Ireland guidance emphasises competence, confidentiality, and supervision |
Canada (Federation of Law Societies)
The Federation of Law Societies of Canada (FLSC) has not issued specific AI guidance at the national level. However:
- FLSC Model Code of Professional Conduct: existing rules on competence (Rule 3.1-2), confidentiality (Rule 3.3-1), and supervision (Rule 6.1-1) apply to AI use
- Provincial law societies: several provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta) have issued guidance or formed AI task forces:
- Law Society of Ontario (LSO): Technology Practice Task Force recommends competence in AI tools as part of technological competence
- Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC): issued a practice resource on AI confirming lawyers must understand and supervise AI tools
Australia (Law Council and State Bars)
The Law Council of Australia has not issued a national AI policy, but several state bodies provide guidance:
- Law Society of New South Wales: published AI guidance confirming that existing professional obligations apply, particularly competence (Rule 4) and confidentiality (Rule 9)
- Law Institute of Victoria: AI working group recommends firms develop AI policies and review insurance coverage for AI-assisted work
- Queensland Law Society: guidance emphasises verification of AI outputs and informed client consent
South Africa (LPC)
The Legal Practice Council (LPC) has not issued specific AI guidance. The existing Code of Conduct applies:
- Rule 3 (Competence): requires legal practitioners to "perform work with the necessary skill, care, and diligence"
- Rule 5 (Confidentiality): prohibits disclosure of confidential information obtained during practice
- Rule 9 (Fees): fees must be "fair and reasonable"
The LPC is expected to issue AI practice notes. Practitioners should monitor LPC circulars and the Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and Western Cape provincial councils for emerging guidance.
Other Jurisdictions
Many bar associations and legal regulators are actively developing AI guidance, including:
- Kenya: Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has formed an AI task force
- Ghana: Ghana Bar Association is reviewing AI implications for legal practice
- Singapore: Law Society of Singapore guidance (2024) confirms professional obligations apply to AI use
- Hong Kong: Law Society of Hong Kong issued AI guidelines in 2024
- India: Bar Council of India has not issued specific AI rules; existing ethical duties apply
- New Zealand: Law Society guidance (2024) emphasises competence and confidentiality
We recommend checking with your local bar association or law society for the most current requirements in your jurisdiction. This is a rapidly evolving area of professional regulation.
7. Best Practices
- Never submit privileged or highly confidential information to any AI tool without understanding its data handling practices
- Always verify citations, legal authorities, and factual assertions generated by AI
- Use AI tools for drafting and analysis, but exercise independent judgment on all legal conclusions
- Document your use of AI tools in your matter records
- Develop a firm-wide AI use policy that addresses competence, confidentiality, supervision, and training
8. Contact
For questions about professional use of Tensflare products, contact us at sales@tensflare.com.