Questions Clients Can Ask About Their Lawyer's AI Use

What questions help someone understand AI use by their counsel?

Ask what the tool will do, what information it receives, who checks the result, whether you have relevant choices, how charges work and what happens if an error is discovered. Focus on the actual task and data flow. You do not need to become a model engineer to ask for an understandable explanation.

Ask about the task, not just whether AI is used

AI use can mean very different activities: proofreading a public document, organizing confidential records or drafting a substantive analysis. Start by identifying the actual activity and the human responsible for the result.

ABA Model Rule 1.4 addresses communication and explanations needed for informed client decisions. [S1] This discussion guide proposes questions a client can ask; it does not say that every tool use requires a separate approval.

• What part of my matter would the tool help with?
• Who checks the work, and what do they check it against?
• Could the tool send messages, alter records or make commitments?
• Which decisions remain mine, and how will you ask for them?

Clarify information handling and cost

Ask which information leaves the firm's systems and who can access it. A statement that a product is secure is less informative than an explanation of its relevant data use, retention and review arrangements. The answer should fit the proposed task rather than describe technology in the abstract.

ABA Formal Opinion 512 discusses confidentiality, communication and reasonable fees in generative-AI use. [S2] It is an ABA model-rule analysis; governing rules and circumstances matter.

• Will my documents or identifying information be supplied to an outside provider?
• Can the provider use that information for another purpose?
• How long is information retained, and who can access it?
• How are tool costs and the lawyer's actual work reflected in the agreed fee arrangement?
• What alternatives are available if I have a concern about a proposed use?

Synthetic conversation: reviewing a contract summary

Client: I am comfortable with help organizing the documents, but I want to understand who checks the contract summary. Lawyer: The proposed tool extracts clauses; a lawyer compares the material points with the contract before discussing the advice with you. Client: Will the complete contract leave your system, and can you explain the provider's data arrangement?

The conversation identifies a task, review step and open data question. It does not yet prove the provider's terms or the review actually performed. A useful follow-up is a clear answer tied to the tool and workflow proposed for the matter.

• Known: proposed task is clause extraction.
• Promised process: lawyer comparison of material points.
• Open question: actual data handling.
• Follow-up record: counsel's explanation and any agreed limitations.

Know how concerns will be handled

Before a problem arises, ask how to flag an inaccurate summary or a source that does not support the explanation. If you discover an apparent mistake, identify the passage and underlying document rather than assuming every part of the work is unreliable.

A practical communication record can include the issue raised, the responsible contact, the response and any affected advice or document. The appropriate remedial action depends on the facts; the point is to make correction reachable and understandable.

• Who should I contact about a suspected error?
• How will you determine whether other work was affected?
• How will a corrected document be distinguished from the earlier version?
• What status information can I expect about the issue?

Scope and limitations

General client education using ABA model-rule references. It does not decide what disclosure or consent is legally required in a particular representation.

The dialogue is fictional. The guide does not prescribe required consent language, assess a lawyer's conduct or create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources

1. ABA Model Rule 1.4: Communications — Communication and explanations needed for informed client decisions under the ABA model rule. Checked 2026-11-05
2. ABA Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (2024) — ABA model-rule ethics analysis; lawyer responsibilities remain relevant when generative AI is used. Checked 2026-11-05

Explore further

Readers can explore the central Agentic Attorney project at https://agenticattorney.com/ with these questions in mind. Visiting a technology site or reading this guide does not itself establish a relationship with counsel. Explore Agentic Attorney.