Every attorney using AI tools carries the same professional responsibilities they always have. This page explains how Plaintify is designed with those obligations in mind — and where the professional judgment always remains yours.
“Generative artificial intelligence tools present both significant potential benefits and serious risks to lawyers and their clients.”
ABA Formal Opinion 512 — the primary national guidance on attorney AI use — identifies obligations under Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, and 5.3. It does not prohibit AI tool use; it requires competent and responsible use. As of early 2025, 23+ state bars have issued their own guidance. Plaintify is designed with these obligations in mind.
Lawyers must maintain the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for representation — including, per Comment 8, keeping current with "changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology."
Plaintify surfaces citations to primary authority (cases, statutes, regulations) from verified legal databases — not hallucinated references. Every research result includes jurisdiction, court, and date so attorneys can evaluate currency and relevance. The platform is designed to assist, not replace, attorney judgment. Attorneys retain full responsibility for independent verification of all AI-generated content before reliance.
Attorneys must keep clients reasonably informed and explain matters sufficiently for clients to make informed decisions. ABA Formal Opinion 512 notes that attorneys should consider whether to disclose AI tool usage where it may be material to the representation.
Plaintify does not prescribe disclosure decisions — those remain professional judgments. The platform generates draft communications and explanations that attorneys review and tailor before client delivery. No AI-generated content reaches clients except through attorney review and authorization.
Fees must be reasonable. ABA Formal Opinion 512 cautions that attorneys using AI tools may not bill clients for time saved by AI as though it were billable human effort, and that overhead costs of AI tools should not be passed through as disbursements unless the client agrees.
Billing practices remain entirely the attorney's professional responsibility. Plaintify does not generate billing entries. Time-tracking integrations, if used, record attorney-initiated actions only. Firms should establish clear internal policies governing AI tool cost treatment before billing clients for work assisted by Plaintify.
Attorneys must not disclose client information without informed consent. ABA Formal Opinion 512 and most state bar opinions addressing AI require attorneys to evaluate whether an AI provider's data practices adequately protect client confidential information.
Attorneys may not make frivolous claims or knowingly make false statements of law or fact to a tribunal. Courts have sanctioned attorneys for submitting AI-generated briefs containing fabricated citations. ABA Formal Opinion 512 emphasizes attorney responsibility to verify all AI-generated legal authority.
Citation verification tools flag cases that may have received negative treatment (reversal, overruling, or distinguishment). However, no automated tool substitutes for attorney review. All citations in AI-generated drafts must be independently verified by the supervising attorney before filing. Plaintify's output is a starting point for attorney analysis, not a filing-ready product.
Supervising attorneys are responsible for ensuring that all work product — including work assisted by nonlawyers or technology — conforms to professional conduct rules. ABA Formal Opinion 512 applies supervisory obligations to AI tool outputs.
Plaintify is designed for use under attorney supervision. All generated documents, research summaries, damages analyses, and intake forms are drafts requiring attorney review. Firms should adopt internal policies governing who may use Plaintify, what matter types are appropriate, and what review workflows apply before client delivery or court filing.
Client matter data entered into Plaintify is never used to train or fine-tune any AI model — by Plaintify or by its AI inference providers. This is a contractual commitment, not a policy subject to change.
Each firm's data is logically isolated. No information from your matters is accessible to other firms or their users. Infrastructure-level separation is enforced at the database and storage layers.
All data is encrypted in transit using TLS 1.3 and at rest using AES-256. Access controls follow the principle of least privilege. Audit logs are maintained for all data access events.
Queries sent to AI inference providers are processed and discarded — no retention beyond request completion. No attorney-client information persists in third-party AI systems.
Plaintify offers a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) to all subscribers. The DPA defines data handling obligations, sub-processor disclosures, and security commitments. Contact legal@plaintify.ai to request your DPA.
Plaintify maintains a written incident response plan. In the event of a data security incident affecting client confidential information, we will notify affected firms promptly and cooperate with any required state bar notification obligations.
A growing number of federal and state courts have adopted local rules or standing orders requiring disclosure of AI assistance in court filings. Requirements vary significantly by jurisdiction and judge. Attorneys are responsible for checking current local rules before any filing. The table below reflects information as of early 2025 and may not reflect subsequent rule changes.
| Court / Jurisdiction | Status | Practitioner Note |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Conference of the United States | Advisory guidance issued — individual district courts adopting local rules | No uniform federal rule; check local rules of each district |
| Texas — 5th Circuit Local Rules | Some districts require AI disclosure in filings | N.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., and others have adopted standing orders |
| N.D. Cal. Standing Order | Several judges require AI disclosure | Check individual judge standing orders before filing |
| Colorado State Courts | Pilot disclosure requirement in select divisions | Chief Justice Directive 23-01 addresses AI use in court filings |
| New York Courts | Proposed rules under consideration as of early 2025 | Check current local rules — requirements may have changed |
Note: This table is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and may not reflect current rules. Always verify current local rules and individual judge standing orders before filing.
Plaintify's conflict screening tools perform automated name-matching across matter records in your firm's Plaintify account. This is a useful first-pass screening tool — not a complete conflict-of-interest analysis under Model Rule 1.7, 1.8, or 1.9.
A complete conflict check requires human judgment, knowledge of all firm relationships and engagements across all systems of record, evaluation of substantially related matters, and analysis of whether representation is nonetheless permissible. Attorneys must perform and document a complete conflict analysis before accepting any new representation.
More than 23 states have issued formal ethics opinions or guidance on attorney AI use. Below are key resources. Attorneys should consult the most current guidance from their state bar before adopting AI tools in client matters.
ABA Formal Opinion 512 and most state bar guidance recommend that law firms adopt written AI use policies. At minimum, consider addressing the following.
Define which practice areas and task types are appropriate for AI assistance. Research and initial drafting typically present lower risk than final court filings or client-facing communications.
Require attorney verification of all citations and legal authority in AI-generated work product before any filing or client delivery. Document the verification step.
Establish who may use AI tools, at what seniority level, and what review workflow applies before AI-assisted work reaches clients or courts.
Determine what client matter information may be entered into AI platforms based on your evaluation of data handling practices and your ethical obligations under Rule 1.6.
Adopt clear policies on how AI tool usage is treated for billing purposes, consistent with Rule 1.5 and the guidance in ABA Formal Opinion 512.
Maintain current awareness of AI disclosure requirements in each jurisdiction where attorneys practice, and build a disclosure review step into the filing workflow.
We can provide a signed DPA, discuss information security practices in detail, or help your firm’s counsel evaluate Plaintify against your ethical obligations.
This page is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Information about bar ethics opinions and court rules may not reflect subsequent changes. Attorneys are solely responsible for evaluating whether Plaintify is appropriate for their practice and for compliance with all applicable rules of professional conduct in their jurisdiction. Plaintify is a legal productivity tool, not a law firm.