Your attorneys are using generative AI to draft briefs, summarize discovery, and research case law. Without a governance policy, that's a Model Rule 1.6 violation, a potential sanctions order, and a bar complaint in the making.
12 questions · 5 minutes · Instant compliance score
When an attorney pastes a client's deposition transcript, contract terms, or litigation strategy into ChatGPT or Claude to get a summary or draft, that data leaves your firm's control. It enters a third-party model's processing infrastructure — potentially for training — and is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege for that disclosure. ABA Model Rule 1.6 requires "reasonable measures" to prevent unauthorized disclosure. Consumer AI tools without a signed BAA or DPA don't qualify.
ABA Model Rule 1.6In Mata v. Avianca, two attorneys submitted a brief citing six AI-generated cases that did not exist. The court sanctioned them $5,000 each and required written apologies. Similar sanctions have followed in federal courts in Texas, California, and the Fifth Circuit. ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 requires attorneys to understand the "benefits and risks" of relevant technology. Filing AI-drafted work product without citation verification is a competence violation — and it's now specifically on judges' radar.
ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment 8 · Mata v. AviancaIf an AI tool drafts a memo in 4 minutes that would have taken an associate 3 hours, billing the client 3 hours of attorney time is a fee dispute and potential ethics violation waiting to happen. Several state bars have issued guidance on AI billing transparency. The ABA's Model Rules on fees require that billing be "reasonable" — a standard that's shifting as courts and bar associations scrutinize AI time inflation. You need a written billing policy that addresses AI before a client or bar investigator asks for your time records.
ABA Model Rule 1.5 · State Bar GuidanceAfter your 12-question assessment, GovernIQ generates a personalized $299 Compliance Action Plan — specific to your firm size, practice areas, AI tools in use, and state bar requirements. Not a template. Built from your answers.
Written AI use policy mapped to Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), Rule 1.1 (competence), and applicable state bar AI ethics opinions — including NC, NY, FL, and CA guidance.
Categorized inventory of AI tools attorneys can use, can use only with client consent, and must prohibit for client matters — with the confidentiality rationale for each.
Documented review and sign-off process for AI-assisted work product before filing or client delivery — defensible evidence of competent supervision under Rule 5.1/5.3.
Engagement letter language and matter-specific disclosure forms so clients understand how AI tools are (and aren't) used in their representation — reducing fee disputes and bar complaints.
The free assessment scores your firm's AI governance across tools, data handling, training, and policy. You'll know exactly where you're exposed — before a sanctions order or bar complaint makes it urgent.
Free assessment · Compliance Action Plan $299 · No subscription