Florida Bar Opinion 24-1: Confidentiality, Verification, Billing, and AI
Opinion 24-1 permits generative AI use while emphasizing confidentiality, output verification, supervision, reasonable fees, and compliance with advertising rules.
Sources Cited
Florida Bar Opinion 24-1: Confidentiality, Verification, Billing, and AI
Opinion 24-1 permits generative AI use while emphasizing confidentiality, output verification, supervision, reasonable fees, and compliance with advertising rules.
Educational summary Legal AI risk Not legal advice
Generative AI changes the tools lawyers use, but it does not suspend the duties that govern legal work. The lawyer remains responsible for understanding the system and the output.
Quick Answer
Opinion 24-1 permits generative AI use while emphasizing confidentiality, output verification, supervision, reasonable fees, and compliance with advertising rules.
Why This Story Matters
The source converts broad ethical principles into operational requirements. Tool review, confidentiality, verification, client communication, supervision, and billing should be built into the workflow rather than left to individual discretion.
Main Points From the Source
- Lawyers must investigate provider data policies and protect confidentiality.
- AI output must be reviewed for accuracy and sufficiency.
- Lawyers remain responsible for supervision and appropriate billing.
- AI-assisted communications and advertising remain subject to existing rules.
What It Means for Legal AI and Law Firms
A legal AI system should reinforce professional responsibility through approved access, visible sources, review checkpoints, and policy. It cannot shift responsibility away from the lawyer.
Risk Patterns to Watch
Confidentiality by Assumption
A lawyer may assume a familiar AI product protects information without reviewing retention, secondary use, access, and training terms.
Delegating Professional Judgment
Polished output can obscure that competence, candor, supervision, and final responsibility remain with the lawyer.
Unclear Client and Billing Practices
AI use can raise questions about disclosure, consent, supervision, and reasonable fees when technology changes the time required.
A Mindful AI Governance Lens
Mindful legal AI use begins with the duties lawyers already understand. The system may assist, but it does not become the attorney of record or the person responsible for protecting client information.
Practical Next Steps
- Approve tools only after reviewing confidentiality, retention, training, access, and security terms.
- Require verification of facts, authorities, quotations, reasoning, and jurisdictional relevance.
- Document when client notice or consent is required and how AI-supported fees will be assessed.
- Assign a lawyer or governance group to supervise implementation, policy updates, and exceptions.
CounselCore Takeaway
CounselCore's in-house design can reduce questions about sending sensitive information to an external model provider and support a more controlled review process.
Important limitation: Internal deployment does not remove the need for security, competence, verification, reasonable fees, or client communication.
CTA: If your firm is evaluating generative AI, start by mapping where confidential information, prompts, outputs, logs, and citations actually go. CounselCore is built around that question: how can lawyers use AI while keeping legal work controlled, grounded, and defensible?
This article is an educational summary and is not legal advice.
Original Source
Opinion 24-1
The Florida Bar | January 19, 2024
CounselCore Briefing
Discuss how in-house AI can reduce avoidable privilege, discovery, confidentiality, and governance exposure for legal teams.
Request a Confidential Briefing
More Summaries
Review the public source record behind the CounselCore in-house AI position.