The text and its history
Model Rule 1.1 says a lawyer shall provide competent representation, which requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. That language has been around forever. What changed in 2012 is Comment 8, which made explicit that competence includes keeping abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology."
The phrase is doing a lot of work. It does not require a lawyer to use any particular technology. It does require a lawyer to keep abreast of what relevant technology can do (the benefits) and what can go wrong with it (the risks). For most lawyers in 2026, AI is indisputably relevant technology. Your clients are using it. Opposing counsel is using it. Courts are starting to see it in filings. Whether you use it yourself or not, you need a working understanding of what it is and what it gets wrong.
State adoption
As of mid-2024, around 40 U.S. jurisdictions had adopted Comment 8 in some form. The wording varies state to state, and a few states use comments to other rules (or formal opinions) to reach the same place. The practical effect is broadly the same: competence includes technology, and technology now includes AI.
If you practice in a state that has not adopted Comment 8, you are not off the hook. The general duty of competence under Rule 1.1 has been read by ethics committees in non-Comment-8 states to require technology competence anyway, on the theory that you cannot be competent in the practice of law in 2026 without understanding the technology your clients and adversaries are using.
What state bars have said about AI specifically
A non-exhaustive list of formal opinions and guidance from the past two years (verify the latest version in your state — these are moving):
| Jurisdiction | Guidance |
|---|---|
| ABA | Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) addresses generative AI and the duties of competence, confidentiality, communication, supervision, and reasonable fees. The single most-cited piece of national guidance on AI for lawyers. |
| California | State Bar's "Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law" (Nov 2023). Not a formal opinion but cited widely; addresses confidentiality, supervision, and the duty to disclose AI use to clients in some circumstances. |
| Florida | Ethics Opinion 24-1 (Jan 2024). Addresses confidentiality concerns with third-party AI, supervision, and billing. Particularly clear on the diligence required when selecting an AI vendor. |
| New York State Bar | April 2024 task force report on AI; widely cited though not itself a formal disciplinary opinion. |
| Several others | Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, and others have all issued formal opinions or task force guidance in the 2023–2025 window. The pattern is consistent: AI use is permitted, AI use requires competence, AI use does not relieve the lawyer of responsibility for the work. |
What competence looks like in practice
Pulling together the threads from ABA Opinion 512 and the state guidance, technology competence in the AI era practically requires:
- A working understanding of what generative AI is and how it can fail. You do not have to know how it works under the hood, but you must understand that it can hallucinate, that it is trained on data with a cutoff, and that its outputs are not authoritative.
- Diligence in selecting AI tools you use in client work. Understand who the vendor is, what happens to data you submit, whether the vendor trains on your inputs, where data is stored, and what their security posture is.
- Verifying any AI output before relying on it. The Avianca lesson, in two words.
- Supervision of any non-lawyer or junior lawyer using AI under your direction (Rule 5.3).
- Honest billing. Time saved by AI is generally not billable as if you spent the time. ABA Opinion 512 is explicit on this.
- Disclosure to clients in circumstances where it is materially relevant — for example, where the use of AI affects the cost, the timeline, or the nature of the work product.
The lazy answer that won't survive
"I don't use AI" is increasingly not a complete answer. Your paralegals may. Your associates may. Opposing counsel may. Your clients almost certainly do. The duty of competence requires you to understand what's around you, even if you choose not to use it. The cleanest path is to engage with it deliberately and on your own terms — which is most of the reason this Learn section exists.