NYCLA Formal Opinion on AI (2024)

The New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) issued the closest state-level analog to ABA Formal Opinion 512 in New York. It addresses generative AI under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and reinforces that the lawyer — not the tool — remains responsible for accuracy and confidentiality.

Key holdings

• Accuracy is the lawyer's duty. AI output must be verified against authoritative sources before use in any client work or court filing.
• Confidentiality runs to the tool. Client information may not be shared with non-confidential AI services without informed client consent. Vendor terms of service should be reviewed against NY Rule 1.6.
• Supervisory duties extend to AI. Partners and supervising attorneys are responsible for the AI use of subordinate lawyers and nonlawyer staff under NY Rules 5.1 and 5.3.
• Candor to the tribunal is unchanged. Submitting AI-generated false authority violates NY Rule 3.3, regardless of intent.

What the opinion adds to ABA 512

Three New York–specific points are useful even outside New York:

1. The opinion endorses written firm-level AI policies as a best practice for satisfying supervisory duties — a posture that aligns with what the Ohio task force also recommended.
2. It addresses pro se litigants' AI use indirectly, noting that opposing counsel's duty of candor extends to alerting the court when an apparently AI-generated pro se filing contains false authority that materially affects the matter.
3. It treats vendor due diligence as part of the competence duty, not as a separate IT function.

Cross-reference to Ohio

Ohio attorneys can read NYCLA's opinion as a preview of how a state bar applies the Rules of Professional Conduct to AI when the state Supreme Court has not yet issued its own formal opinion. The NYCLA framework parallels the conclusions of the Ohio Supreme Court task force on competence, supervision, confidentiality, and verification.

Practitioner takeaways

• Adopt a written firm AI policy. The NYCLA opinion treats its absence as a supervisory failure waiting to happen.
• Treat vendor due diligence as a competence question, not a procurement question.
• If you are New York–licensed, read NYCLA alongside ABA Opinion 512 — together they cover the state's operational expectations.

The full text of the NYCLA opinion is available at the link above.