Ethics-Safe AI Use for Law Firms — Course Modules

A 60-minute on-demand module on a California lawyer's duty to independently review and verify all output from generative AI tools before relying on it or filing it. Covers California Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 and 3.3, the State Bar's Practical Guidance on generative AI, the proposed AI amendments to the Rules, the sanctions decision in Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., and a five-step citation verification protocol.

What "technological competence" actually requires under Rule 1.1 when a generative AI tool is inside the legal workflow — and how the duty has been elaborated by ABA Op. 512 and California State Bar Practical Guidance.

What an AI vendor's terms of service actually mean for privileged client information. The vendor questionnaire that surfaces the Rule 1.6 problem before it's a sanctions order.

Why the lawyers in Mata v. Avianca, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) were sanctioned — and the verification workflow (the Mata Protocol) that would have caught the fabricated citations. The five-category hallucination taxonomy and what each requires.

What partners and managers owe when associates, paralegals, or contract attorneys use AI tools. The Five Artifacts test for firm-level compliance and the policy decisions a managing partner has to make in writing.

How AI use is reshaping the cognitive load of legal practice, the burnout patterns to watch for, and the boundary practices that preserve professional judgment. Covers competence and wellness in legal practice.

How the major jurisdictions differ on AI ethics guidance — NYSBA Task Force Report 2024, Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, D.C. Bar Opinion 388, and the California State Bar's November 2023 guidance. Reference module bundled with every enrollment.