Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1

Florida Bar Opinion 24-1, issued in January 2024, is one of the earliest state-level ethics opinions on attorney use of generative AI and the first to address the billing implications of AI-compressed task time directly. It permits attorneys to use generative AI subject to confidentiality, oversight, candor, and fee-reasonableness obligations.

What the opinion permits

Attorneys may use generative AI to assist with legal research, document review, drafting, scheduling, and similar tasks, provided the lawyer:

• Maintains a competent understanding of the tool's benefits and limitations.
• Verifies AI-generated work product before reliance.
• Supervises any nonlawyer assistance the AI provides.
• Obtains informed client consent before sharing confidential information with a third-party AI service that does not contractually protect the data.

The billing rule

The opinion's most-cited contribution: if AI compresses a task that previously took hours into minutes, the attorney cannot bill the prior number of hours. The fee must be reasonable under the Florida Bar's fee rules. The opinion identifies two compatible models:

1. Bill the actual time spent. If AI assistance reduced the time, the bill reflects the reduction.
2. Move to value-based or flat-fee billing. Where the matter is suited to it, decoupling fees from hours sidesteps the AI-compression problem entirely.

Confidentiality framework

Florida's framework aligns with ABA Opinion 512: a public-facing AI tool that retains user inputs is a third party for confidentiality purposes. Informed client consent is required before sharing client confidences with such a tool. Enterprise-grade products with contractual protection are evaluated under reasonable-efforts standards.

Why this matters beyond Florida

Opinion 24-1 is the state-level template other bars are studying for the billing question, which ABA Opinion 512 addressed only briefly. If your firm bills by the hour, the Florida opinion is the operational guidance you need to read alongside 512.

Practitioner takeaways

• Audit your time-keeping practices. AI-compressed tasks must be billed at the actual time spent, not the historical norm.
• Update engagement letters to address AI use and the billing model.
• For matters suited to flat fees, consider whether the fee structure should change to capture AI efficiency for the firm without overcharging the client.

The full text of Opinion 24-1 is available at the link above.