AI’s ethical dangers and best practices explored in free Bar webinar
The webinar “Attempted Intelligence: Ethical Considerations Surrounding the Use of AI” kicked off with an overview of artificial intelligence, comparing generative AI-produced work to an undercooked frozen dinner that “looks good on the outside” but is often cold when you take “a few bites,” according to Jonathan Grabb, The Florida Bar’s ethics counsel.
“[AI programs] do not have the capacity to fully understand and analyze — and create new information, new stories — in the way that the human brain does,” said Grabb, who has researched the ethical implications of generative AI and has written on the topic for The Florida Bar News.
The presentation was hosted by the Student Education and Admission to the Bar Committee and covered risk issues surrounding AI “hallucinations,” in which generative AI cites non-existent legal decisions, referencing recent cases to illustrate the risks. The panel also addressed concerns regarding client confidentiality and billing practices.
The free CLE webinar, presented on November 7, featured ethics expert Joseph Corsmeier, who defends lawyers and other Florida-licensed professionals in disciplinary actions from his Palm Harbor office; Young Lawyers Division President-elect Arti Hirani, an estate planning, international tax, and probate attorney who uses AI extensively in her Winter Park practice; and Grabb.
The panelists referred to cases from 2023 and 2024 where lawyers failed to correct AI hallucinations in court documents, resulting in sanctions, and where client confidentiality was compromised by using generative AI on public platforms.
Attorneys using AI to draft documents are urged to review those documents closely. The panel emphasized that just as lawyers are responsible for supervising the work of paralegals, they are equally responsible if a faulty AI-generated document is submitted to the court.
When using AI, lawyers must take precautions to avoid disclosing confidential information to unauthorized parties, much as they would when printing or transmitting sensitive documents.
“Our duties aren’t going to change, though the technology will change,” said Hirani.
To mitigate the risk of compromising client confidentiality or producing documents with errors, the panel recommended that lawyers use reputable AI tools specifically designed for legal professionals and carefully review AI-generated documents.
Regarding billing, as AI helps lawyers drastically shorten the time it takes to develop drafts, the panel clarified that time spent creating the “prompt” to generate a draft is billable. However, attorneys cannot bill for the time spent learning how to use the AI tool or for the time it would have taken without using AI.
“It has to be tied to the actual cost for that client,” stated Grabb.
One alternative is task-based billing, where a non-refundable set amount is charged. In this case, the cost of AI would be considered overhead.
The panel also noted that the Bar does not approve file opening or set-up fees. Regardless of whether billing for time or using a task-based fee, lawyers cannot charge for time that does not move the client’s case forward.
A question-and-answer session following the panel’s presentation is included in the recording of the one-hour webinar.
