美国律师协会（ABA）关于生成式AI的512号正式意见书 （中英文对照版）
以下中英文对照版内容由慧多宝法律AI，双语合同助手模块翻译而成。
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Formal Opinion512 July29,2024
Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools
美国律师协会伦理与职业责任常设委员会
正式意见5122024年7月29日
生成式人工智能工具
To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.
为了确保客户受到保护，使用生成式人工智能工具的律师必须充分考虑其适用的伦理义务，包括提供胜任的法律代理、保护客户信息、与客户沟通、监督其员工和代理人、仅提出有价值的主张和争议、确保对法庭的诚实以及收取合理的费用。
I.Introduction
I.简介
Many lawyers use artificial intelligence (AI) based technologies in their practices to improve the efficiency and quality of legal services to clients.1 A well-known use is electronic discovery in litigation, in which lawyers use technology-assisted review to categorize vast quantities of documents as responsive or non-responsive and to segregate privileged documents. Another common use is contract analytics, which lawyers use to conduct due diligence in connection with mergers and acquisitions and large corporate transactions. In the realm of analytics, AI also can help lawyers predict how judges might rule on a legal question based on data about the judge’s rulings; discover the summary judgment grant rate for every federal district judge; or evaluate how parties and lawyers may behave in current litigation based on their past conduct in similar litigation. And for basic legal research, AI may enhance lawyers’ search results.
许多律师在其实践中使用基于人工智能（AI）的技术，以提高向客户提供法律服务的效率和质量。一个广为人知的用途是诉讼中的电子发现，律师使用技术辅助审查将大量文件分类为响应或不响应，并隔离特权文件。另一个常见用途是合同分析，律师在进行并购和大型企业交易的尽职调查时使用。在分析领域，AI还可以帮助律师根据法官的裁决数据预测法官可能对法律问题的裁决；发现每个联邦地区法官的简易判决授予率；或根据当事人和律师在类似诉讼中的过去行为评估他们在当前诉讼中的行为。而在基本的法律研究方面，AI可以增强律师的搜索结果。
This opinion discusses a subset of AI technology that has more recently drawn the attention of the legal profession and the world at large – generative AI (GAI), which can create various types of new content, including text, images, audio, video, and software code in response to a user’s prompts and questions.2 GAI tools that produce new text are prediction tools that generate a statistically probable output when prompted. To accomplish this, these tools analyze large amounts of digital text culled from the internet or proprietary data sources. Some GAI tools are described as “self-learning,” meaning they will learn from themselves as they cull more data. GAI tools may assist lawyers in tasks such as legal research, contract review, due diligence, document review, regulatory compliance, and drafting letters, contracts, briefs, and other legal documents.
本意见讨论了一种最近引起法律界和全世界关注的AI技术子集——生成式人工智能（GAI），它可以根据用户的提示和问题创建各种类型的新内容，包括文本、图像、音频、视频和软件代码。生成新文本的GAI工具是预测工具，在提示时生成统计上可能的输出。为此，这些工具分析了从互联网或专有数据源中收集的大量数字文本。一些GAI工具被描述为“自学习”，意味着它们会随着收集更多数据而自我学习。GAI工具可以帮助律师完成法律研究、合同审查、尽职调查、文件审查、合规性监管以及起草信件、合同、简报和其他法律文件等任务。
GAI tools—whether general purpose or designed specifically for the practice of law—raise important questions under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.3 What level of competency should lawyers acquire regarding a GAI tool? How can lawyers satisfy their duty of confidentiality when using a GAI tool that requires input of information relating to a representation? When must lawyers disclose their use of a GAI tool to clients? What level of review of a GAI tool’s process or output is necessary? What constitutes a reasonable fee or expense when lawyers use a GAI tool to provide legal services to clients?
无论是通用的还是专门为法律实践设计的GAI工具，都在ABA职业行为模型规则下提出了重要问题。律师应具备何种程度的GAI工具使用能力？在使用需要输入与代理相关的信息的GAI工具时，律师如何履行保密义务？何时必须向客户披露使用GAI工具？对GAI工具的过程或输出需要何种程度的审查？当律师使用GAI工具提供法律服务时，什么构成合理的费用或开支？
本文由慧多宝法律AI双语合同助手翻译而成，支持4万字长文的12种语言翻译，点击下方小程序立即注册,免费体验！
At the same time, as with many new technologies, GAI tools are a moving target—indeed, a rapidly moving target—in the sense that their precise features and utility to law practice are quickly changing and will continue to change in ways that may be difficult or impossible to anticipate. This Opinion identifies some ethical issues involving the use of GAI tools and offers general guidance for lawyers attempting to navigate this emerging landscape.4 It is anticipated that this Committee and state and local bar association ethics committees will likely offer updated guidance on professional conduct issues relevant to specific GAI tools as they develop.
同时，正如许多新技术一样，GAI工具是一个不断变化的目标——确实是一个快速变化的目标——因为其精确的特性和对法律实践的实用性正在迅速变化，并将继续以难以预见的方式变化。本意见指出了一些涉及GAI工具使用的伦理问题，并为试图在这一新兴领域导航的律师提供一般指导。预计该委员会以及州和地方律师协会的伦理委员会将在特定GAI工具的发展过程中提供更新的职业行为问题指导。
II.Discussion
II.讨论
A.Competence
A.胜任能力
Model Rule1.1 obligates lawyers to provide competent representation to clients.5 This duty requires lawyers to exercise the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation,” as well as to understand “the benefits and risks associated” with the technologies used to deliver legal services to clients.6 Lawyers may ordinarily achieve the requisite level of competency by engaging in self-study, associating with another competent lawyer, or consulting with an individual who has sufficient expertise in the relevant field.7
模型规则1.1要求律师向客户提供胜任的代理服务。这一职责要求律师具备“代理所需的法律知识、技能、细致和准备”，并理解使用技术提供法律服务所带来的“益处和风险”。律师通常可以通过自学、与其他胜任的律师合作或咨询具有相关领域足够专业知识的个人来达到所需的胜任水平。
To competently use a GAI tool in a client representation, lawyers need not become GAI experts. Rather, lawyers must have a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the specific GAI technology that the lawyer might use. This means that lawyers should either acquire a reasonable understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools that they employ in their practices or draw on the expertise of others who can provide guidance about the relevant GAI tool’s capabilities and limitations.8 This is not a static undertaking. Given the fast-paced evolution of GAI tools, technological competence presupposes that lawyers remain vigilant about the tools’ benefits and risks.9 Although there is no single right way to keep up with GAI developments, lawyers should consider reading about GAI tools targeted at the legal profession, attending relevant continuing legal education programs, and, as noted above, consulting others who are proficient in GAI technology.10
为了在客户代理中胜任地使用GAI工具，律师不需要成为GAI专家。相反，律师必须对他们可能使用的特定GAI技术的能力和局限有合理的理解。这意味着律师应当对他们在实践中使用的GAI工具的益处和风险有合理的理解，或者依靠他人的专业知识来提供有关相关GAI工具能力和局限的指导。这不是一项静态的任务。鉴于GAI工具的快速发展，技术胜任能力预设律师对这些工具的益处和风险保持警觉。虽然没有单一的正确方法来跟上GAI的发展，但律师应考虑阅读针对法律职业的GAI工具的相关资料，参加相关的继续法律教育课程，并如上所述，咨询精通GAI技术的他人。
With the ability to quickly create new, seemingly human-crafted content in response to user prompts, GAI tools offer lawyers the potential to increase the efficiency and quality of their legal services to clients. Lawyers must recognize inherent risks, however.11 One example is the risk of producing inaccurate output, which can occur in several ways. The large language models underlying GAI tools use complex algorithms to create fluent text, yet GAI tools are only as good as their data and related infrastructure. If the quality, breadth, and sources of the underlying data on which a GAI tool is trained are limited or outdated or reflect biased content, the tool might produce unreliable, incomplete, or discriminatory results. In addition, the GAI tools lack the ability to understand the meaning of the text they generate or evaluate its context.12 Thus, they may combine otherwise accurate information in unexpected ways to yield false or inaccurate results.13 Some GAI tools are also prone to “hallucinations,” providing ostensibly plausible responses that have no basis in fact or reality.14
由于能够根据用户提示快速创建新的、看似人工制作的内容，GAI工具为律师提供了提高其法律服务效率和质量的潜力。然而，律师必须认识到固有的风险。例如，产生不准确输出的风险，这可能以几种方式发生。支持GAI工具的大型语言模型使用复杂的算法来创建流利的文本，但GAI工具的好坏取决于其数据和相关基础设施的质量。如果GAI工具训练所依据的数据的质量、广度和来源有限或过时，或者反映了偏见内容，该工具可能会产生不可靠、不完整或歧视性的结果。此外，GAI工具缺乏理解其生成文本的意义或评估其上下文的能力。因此，它们可能会以意想不到的方式组合原本准确的信息，从而产生虚假或不准确的结果。一些GAI工具也容易出现“幻觉”，提供看似合理但实际上没有事实或现实基础的响应。
Because GAI tools are subject to mistakes, lawyers’ uncritical reliance on content created by a GAI tool can result in inaccurate legal advice to clients or misleading representations to courts and third parties. Therefore, a lawyer’s reliance on, or submission of, a GAI tool’s output—without an appropriate degree of independent verification or review of its output—could violate the duty to provide competent representation as required by Model Rule1.1.15 While GAI tools may be able to significantly assist lawyers in serving clients, they cannot replace the judgment and experience necessary for lawyers to competently advise clients about their legal matters or to craft the legal documents or arguments required to carry out representations.
由于GAI工具可能出错，律师不加批判地依赖GAI工具生成的内容可能导致向客户提供不准确的法律建议或向法院和第三方提供误导性陈述。因此，律师对GAI工具输出的依赖或提交——如果没有适当程度的独立验证或审查——可能违反模型规则1.1要求的提供胜任代理的义务。虽然GAI工具可能显著帮助律师服务客户，但它们不能取代律师在胜任地为客户提供法律事务建议或起草所需法律文件或论点时所需的判断力和经验。
The appropriate amount of independent verification or review required to satisfy Rule1.1 will necessarily depend on the GAI tool and the specific task that it performs as part of the lawyer’s representation of a client. For example, if a lawyer relies on a GAI tool to review and summarize numerous, lengthy contracts, the lawyer would not necessarily have to manually review the entire set of documents to verify the results if the lawyer had previously tested the accuracy of the tool on a smaller subset of documents by manually reviewing those documents, comparing then to the summaries produced by the tool, and finding the summaries accurate. Moreover, a lawyer’s use of a GAI tool designed specifically for the practice of law or to perform a discrete legal task, such as generating ideas, may require less independent verification or review, particularly where a lawyer’s prior experience with the GAI tool provides a reasonable basis for relying on its results.
为满足规则1.1要求的适当独立验证或审查量将必然取决于GAI工具和其作为律师代理客户的一部分所执行的具体任务。例如，如果律师依赖GAI工具来审查和总结大量冗长的合同，如果律师之前已经通过手动审查这些文件、将其与工具生成的摘要进行比较并发现摘要准确来测试该工具在较小子集文件上的准确性，那么律师不必手动审查整套文件以验证结果。此外，律师使用专为法律实践设计或执行离散法律任务（如生成想法）的GAI工具，可能需要较少的独立验证或审查，特别是当律师之前的GAI工具使用经验提供了依赖其结果的合理基础时。
慧多宝法律AI支持中国法律智能问答及领域问答，互联网问答；100+类型的合同审阅服务；40多种类型的法律文书起草服务；4万字长文翻译及文本纠错；10多种语言的一键翻译及语音播报。并为新用户提供限时免费试用的机会，点击下方小程序立即注册体验吧！
While GAI may be used as a springboard or foundation for legal work—for example, by generating an analysis on which a lawyer bases legal advice, or by generating a draft from which a lawyer produces a legal document—lawyers may not abdicate their responsibilities by relying solely on a GAI tool to perform tasks that call for the exercise of professional judgment. For example, lawyers may not leave it to GAI tools alone to offer legal advice to clients, negotiate clients’ claims, or perform other functions that require a lawyer’s personal judgment or participation.16 Competent representation presupposes that lawyers will exercise the requisite level of skill and judgment regarding all legal work. In short, regardless of the level of review the lawyer selects, the lawyer is fully responsible for the work on behalf of the client.
虽然GAI可以作为法律工作的跳板或基础——例如，通过生成律师基于其提供法律建议的分析，或生成律师制作法律文件的草稿——但律师不得通过仅依赖GAI工具执行需要专业判断的任务来放弃其职责。例如，律师不得仅依赖GAI工具向客户提供法律建议、协商客户的主张或执行其他需要律师个人判断或参与的职能。胜任的代理预设律师将对所有法律工作行使必要的技能和判断力。简而言之，无论律师选择何种审查级别，律师对代表客户的工作负全部责任。
Emerging technologies may provide an output that is of distinctively higher quality than current GAI tools produce, or may enable lawyers to perform work markedly faster and more economically, eventually becoming ubiquitous in legal practice and establishing conventional expectations regarding lawyers’ duty of competence.17 Over time, other new technologies have become integrated into conventional legal practice in this manner.18 For example, “a lawyer would have difficulty providing competent legal services in today’s environment without knowing how to use email or create an electronic document.”19 Similar claims might be made about other tools such as computerized legal research or internet searches.20 As GAI tools continue to develop and become more widely available, it is conceivable that lawyers will eventually have to use them to competently complete certain tasks for clients.21 But even in the absence of an expectation for lawyers to use GAI tools as a matter of course,22 lawyers should become aware of the GAI tools relevant to their work so that they can make an informed decision, as a matter of professional judgment, whether to avail themselves of these tools or to conduct their work by other means.23 As previously noted regarding the possibility of outsourcing certain work, “[t]here is no unique blueprint for the provision of competent legal services. Different lawyers may perform the same tasks through different means, all with the necessary ‘legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation.’”24 Ultimately, any informed decision about whether to employ a GAI tool must consider the client’s interests and objectives.25
新兴技术可能提供比当前GAI工具更高质量的输出，或使律师能够显著更快和更经济地完成工作，最终在法律实践中变得普遍，并确立关于律师胜任义务的常规期望。随着时间的推移，其他新技术已以这种方式整合到常规法律实践中。例如，“在当今环境下，不知道如何使用电子邮件或创建电子文件的律师将难以提供胜任的法律服务。”类似的说法也可以适用于其他工具，如计算机化法律研究或互联网搜索。随着GAI工具的不断发展和更广泛的可用性，律师最终可能不得不使用它们来胜任地完成某些客户任务。但即使没有期望律师例行使用GAI工具，律师也应了解与其工作相关的GAI工具，以便根据专业判断做出是否使用这些工具或通过其他方式进行工作的明智决定。如前所述，关于外包某些工作的可能性，“提供胜任法律服务没有独特的蓝图。不同的律师可以通过不同的方式执行相同的任务，所有这些都具备必要的‘法律知识、技能、细致和准备’。”最终，任何关于是否使用GAI工具的明智决定都必须考虑客户的利益和目标。
B.Confidentiality
B.保密性
A lawyer using GAI must be cognizant of the duty under Model Rule1.6 to keep confidential all information relating to the representation of a client, regardless of its source, unless the client gives informed consent, disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation, or disclosure is permitted by an exception.26 Model Rules1.9(c) and1.18(b) require lawyers to extend similar protections to former and prospective clients’ information. Lawyers also must make “reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of the client.”27
使用GAI的律师必须认识到模型规则1.6下的义务，即对所有与客户代理相关的信息保密，无论其来源如何，除非客户给予知情同意，披露是为执行代理而隐含授权的，或披露是由例外情况允许的。模型规则1.9(c)和1.18(b)要求
Self-learning GAI tools into which lawyers input information relating to the representation, by their very nature, raise the risk that information relating to one client’s representation may be disclosed improperly, even if the tool is used exclusively by lawyers at the same firm. This can occur when information relating to one client’s representation is input into the tool, then later revealed in response to prompts by lawyers working on other matters, who then share that output with other clients, file it with the court, or otherwise disclose it.
律师将涉及客户代理的信息输入自学习GAI工具中，其本质上增加了与一个客户代理相关的信息可能被不当披露的风险，即使该工具仅由同一律所的律师使用。当与一个客户代理相关的信息被输入工具中，然后在其他事务中工作的律师响应提示时被揭示出来，随后将该输出与其他客户共享，提交给法院或以其他方式披露时，这种情况可能会发生。
In other words, the self-learning GAI tool may disclose information relating to the representation to persons outside the firm who are using the same GAI tool. Similarly, it may disclose information relating to the representation to persons in the firm (1) who either are prohibited from access to said information because of an ethical wall or (2) who could inadvertently use the information from one client to help another client, not understanding that the lawyer is revealing client confidences.
换句话说，自学习GAI工具可能会将与代理相关的信息披露给使用相同GAI工具的律所外部人员。同样，它可能会将与代理相关的信息披露给律所内部人员（1）这些人员因伦理隔离墙而被禁止访问该信息，或（2）可能无意中使用一个客户的信息来帮助另一个客户，而未意识到律师正在泄露客户的保密信息。
Accordingly, because many of today’s self-learning GAI tools are designed so that their output could lead directly or indirectly to the disclosure of information relating to the representation of a client, a client’s informed consent is required prior to inputting information relating to the representation into such a GAI tool.
因此，由于许多当今的自学习GAI工具被设计成其输出可能直接或间接导致与客户代理相关的信息的披露，在将与代理相关的信息输入此类GAI工具之前，需要获得客户的知情同意。
When consent is required, it must be informed. For the consent to be informed, the client must have the lawyer’s best judgment about why the GAI tool is being used, the extent of and specific information about the risk, including particulars about the kinds of client information that will be disclosed, the ways in which others might use the information against the client’s interests, and a clear explanation of the GAI tool’s benefits to the representation.
当需要同意时，必须是知情同意。为了使同意是知情的，客户必须了解律师关于为什么使用GAI工具的最佳判断，风险的范围和具体信息，包括将披露的客户信息类型、他人可能如何使用该信息来对抗客户的利益，以及GAI工具对代理的好处的明确解释。
Part of informed consent requires the lawyer to explain the extent of the risk that later users or beneficiaries of the GAI tool will have access to information relating to the representation. To obtain informed consent when using a GAI tool, merely adding general, boiler-plate provisions to engagement letters purporting to authorize the lawyer to use GAI is not sufficient.
知情同意的一部分要求律师解释GAI工具的后续用户或受益人将访问与代理相关的信息的风险程度。为了在使用GAI工具时获得知情同意，仅在聘用信中添加一般的、格式化的条款声称授权律师使用GAI是不够的。
Because of the uncertainty surrounding GAI tools’ ability to protect such information and the uncertainty about what happens to information both at input and output, it will be difficult to evaluate the risk that information relating to the representation will either be disclosed to or accessed by others inside the firm to whom it should not be disclosed as well as others outside the firm.
由于围绕GAI工具保护此类信息的能力的不确定性以及输入和输出时信息发生的情况的不确定性，将难以评估与代理相关的信息是否会被披露给或被律所内部不应披露的其他人以及律所外部的其他人访问的风险。
“专注 AIGC 法律应用领域的专业社区，关注OpenAI等大语言模型商业化应用落地，聚焦法律AI的市场研究，帮助法律工作者拥抱AI，成为AI时代的弄潮儿，欢迎关注！”
As a baseline, all lawyers should read and understand the Terms of Use, privacy policy, and related contractual terms and policies of any GAI tool they use to learn who has access to the information that the lawyer inputs into the tool or consult with a colleague or external expert who has read and analyzed those terms and policies.
作为基准，所有律师都应阅读和理解他们使用的任何GAI工具的使用条款、隐私政策以及相关的合同条款和政策，以了解谁可以访问律师输入工具的信息，或者咨询已阅读和分析这些条款和政策的同事或外部专家。
Lawyers may need to consult with IT professionals or cyber security experts to fully understand these terms and policies as well as the manner in which GAI tools utilize information.
律师可能需要咨询IT专业人员或网络安全专家，以充分理解这些条款和政策以及GAI工具利用信息的方式。
Today, there are uses of self-learning GAI tools in connection with a legal representation when client informed consent is not required because the lawyer will not be inputting information relating to the representation. As an example, if a lawyer is using the tool for idea generation in a manner that does not require inputting information relating to the representation, client informed consent would not be necessary.
今天，有一些在法律代理中使用自学习GAI工具的情况不需要客户的知情同意，因为律师不会输入与代理相关的信息。例如，如果律师以不需要输入与代理相关的信息的方式使用该工具进行创意生成，则不需要客户的知情同意。
C. Communication
C. 沟通
Where Model Rule1.6 does not require disclosure and informed consent, the lawyer must separately consider whether other Model Rules, particularly Model Rule1.4, require disclosing the use of a GAI tool in the representation.
在模型规则1.6不要求披露和知情同意的情况下，律师必须单独考虑其他模型规则，特别是模型规则1.4，是否要求在代理中披露GAI工具的使用。
Model Rule1.4, which addresses lawyers’ duty to communicate with their clients, builds on lawyers’ legal obligations as fiduciaries, which include “the duty of an attorney to advise the client promptly whenever he has any information to give which it is important the client should receive.”
模型规则1.4涉及律师与客户沟通的职责，基于律师作为受托人的法律义务，包括“律师有义务在有任何重要信息应告知客户时，立即告知客户。”
Of particular relevance, Model Rule1.4(a)(2) states that a lawyer shall “reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished.” Additionally, Model Rule1.4(b) obligates lawyers to explain matters “to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make an informed decision regarding the representation.”
特别相关的是，模型规则1.4(a)(2)规定，律师应“合理地与客户协商实现客户目标的方法。”此外，模型规则1.4(b)规定律师有义务“在合理必要的范围内解释事项，以便客户做出有关代理的知情决定。”
Comment [5] to Rule1.4 explains, “the lawyer should fulfill reasonable client expectations for information consistent with the duty to act in the client’s best interests, and the client’s overall requirements as to the character of representation.” Considering these underlying principles, questions arise regarding whether and when lawyers might be required to disclose their use of GAI tools to clients pursuant to Rule1.4.
规则1.4的评论[5]解释说，“律师应满足客户对信息的合理期望，符合为客户最佳利益行事的职责，以及客户对代理性质的总体要求。”考虑到这些基本原则，关于律师是否以及何时根据规则1.4需要向客户披露其使用GAI工具的问题就产生了。
The facts of each case will determine whether Model Rule1.4 requires lawyers to disclose their GAI practices to clients or obtain their informed consent to use a particular GAI tool. Depending on the circumstances, client disclosure may be unnecessary.
每个案件的事实将决定模型规则1.4是否要求律师向客户披露其GAI做法或获得其知情同意以使用特定的GAI工具。根据具体情况，可能不需要客户披露。
Of course, lawyers must disclose their GAI practices if asked by a client how they conducted their work, or whether GAI technologies were employed in doing so, or if the client expressly requires disclosure under the terms of the engagement agreement or the client’s outside counsel guidelines.
当然，如果客户询问律师如何进行工作，或是否使用了GAI技术，或者如果客户在聘用协议条款或客户的外部律师指南中明确要求披露，律师必须披露其GAI做法。
There are also situations where Model Rule1.4 requires lawyers to discuss their use of GAI tools unprompted by the client. For example, as discussed in the previous section, clients would need to be informed in advance, and to give informed consent, if the lawyer proposes to input information relating to the representation into the GAI tool.
还有一些情况，模型规则1.4要求律师在未经客户提示的情况下讨论其GAI工具的使用。例如，如前一节所述，如果律师建议将与代理相关的信息输入GAI工具，客户需要事先被告知并给予知情同意。
Lawyers must also consult clients when the use of a GAI tool is relevant to the basis or reasonableness of a lawyer’s fee.
当使用GAI工具与律师费用的基础或合理性相关时，律师还必须咨询客户。
Client consultation about the use of a GAI tool is also necessary when its output will influence a significant decision in the representation, such as when a lawyer relies on GAI technology to evaluate potential litigation outcomes or jury selection.
当GAI工具的输出会影响代理中的重要决策时，例如律师依赖GAI技术评估潜在的诉讼结果或陪审团选择时，客户咨询也是必要的。
A client would reasonably want to know whether, in providing advice or making important decisions about how to carry out the representation, the lawyer is exercising independent judgment or, in the alternative, is deferring to the output of a GAI tool.
客户合理地希望知道，在提供建议或做出如何执行代理的重要决策时，律师是行使独立判断，还是依赖GAI工具的输出。
Or there may be situations where a client retains a lawyer based on the lawyer’s particular skill and judgment, when the use of a GAI tool, without the client’s knowledge, would violate the terms of the engagement agreement or the client’s reasonable expectations regarding how the lawyer intends to accomplish the objectives of the representation.
或者，可能会有客户基于律师的特定技能和判断聘请律师的情况，此时在客户不知情的情况下使用GAI工具将违反聘用协议的条款或客户对律师如何实现代理目标的合理期望。
It is not possible to catalogue every situation in which lawyers must inform clients about their use of GAI. Again, lawyers should consider whether the specific circumstances warrant client consultation about the use of a GAI tool, including the client’s needs and expectations, the scope of the representation, and the sensitivity of the information involved.
不可能列出律师必须告知客户其使用GAI的每种情况。再次强调，律师应考虑具体情况是否需要就使用GAI工具进行客户咨询，包括客户的需求和期望、代理范围以及所涉及信息的敏感性。
Potentially relevant considerations include the GAI tool’s importance to a particular task, the significance of that task to the overall representation, how the GAI tool will process the client’s information, and the extent to which knowledge of the lawyer’s use of the GAI tool would affect the client’s evaluation of or confidence in the lawyer’s work.
潜在的相关考虑因素包括GAI工具对特定任务的重要性、该任务对整体代理的重要性、GAI工具将如何处理客户信息，以及了解律师使用GAI工具的情况在多大程度上会影响客户对律师工作的评价或信心。
Even when Rule1.6 does not require informed consent and Rule1.4 does not require a disclosure regarding the use of GAI, lawyers may tell clients how they employ GAI tools to assist in the delivery of legal services. Explaining this may serve the interest of effective client communication. The engagement agreement is a logical place to make such disclosures and to identify any client instructions on the use of GAI in the representation.
即使规则1.6不要求知情同意，规则1.4不要求披露使用GAI，律师也可以告诉客户他们如何使用GAI工具来协助提供法律服务。解释这一点可能有助于有效的客户沟通。聘用协议是进行此类披露并确定任何客户对代理中使用GAI的指示的逻辑场所。
D. Meritorious Claims and Contentions and Candor Toward the Tribunal
D. 有根据的主张和内容以及对法庭的坦诚
Lawyers using GAI in litigation have ethical responsibilities to the courts as well as to clients. Model Rules3.1,3.3, and8.4(c) may be implicated by certain uses. Rule3.1 states, in part, that “[a] lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert and issue therein, unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing so that is not frivolous.”
在诉讼中使用GAI的律师对法院和客户都有伦理责任。模型规则3.1、3.3和8.4(c)可能涉及某些用途。规则3.1部分规定，“律师不得提起或辩护程序，或在其中主张或争论问题，除非有法律或事实依据且非无理取闹。”
Rule3.3 makes it clear that lawyers cannot knowingly make any false statement of law or fact to a tribunal or fail to correct a material false statement of law or fact previously made to a tribunal. Rule8.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not engage in “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Even an unintentional misstatement to a court can involve a misrepresentation under Rule8.4(c).
规则3.3明确规定，律师不能故意向法庭作出任何虚假法律或事实陈述，也不能不纠正先前向法庭作出的重大虚假法律或事实陈述。规则8.4(c)规定，律师不得从事“涉及不诚实、欺诈、欺骗或虚假陈述的行为。”即使是无意的错误陈述，也可能涉及规则8.4(c)下的虚假陈述。
Therefore, output from a GAI tool must be carefully reviewed to ensure that the assertions made to the court are not false. Issues that have arisen to date with lawyers’ use of GAI outputs include citations to nonexistent opinions, inaccurate analysis of authority, and use of misleading arguments.
因此，必须仔细审查GAI工具的输出，以确保向法庭作出的陈述不虚假。迄今为止，律师使用GAI输出时出现的问题包括引用不存在的意见、对权威的错误分析和使用误导性论点。
Some courts have responded by requiring lawyers to disclose their use of GAI. As a matter of competence, as previously discussed, lawyers should review for accuracy all GAI outputs. In judicial proceedings, duties to the tribunal likewise require lawyers, before submitting materials to a court, to review these outputs, including analysis and citations to authority, and to correct errors, including misstatements of law and fact, a failure to include controlling legal authority, and misleading arguments.
一些法院已通过要求律师披露其GAI的使用来回应这一问题。作为能力问题，如前所述，律师应审查所有GAI输出的准确性。在司法程序中，对法庭的职责同样要求律师在向法庭提交材料之前审查这些输出，包括分析和引用权威，并纠正错误，包括法律和事实的错误陈述、未包括控制性法律权威以及误导性论点。
E. Supervisory Responsibilities
E.监督责任
Model Rules5.1 and5.3 address the ethical duties of lawyers charged with managerial and supervisory responsibilities and set forth those lawyers’ responsibilities with regard to the firm, subordinate lawyers, and nonlawyers. Managerial lawyers must create effective measures to ensure that all lawyers in the firm conform to the rules of professional conduct, and supervisory lawyers must supervise subordinate lawyers and nonlawyer assistants to ensure that subordinate lawyers and nonlawyer assistants conform to the rules.
模型规则5.1和5.3涉及负责管理和监督职责的律师的伦理职责，并规定了这些律师对律所、下属律师和非律师的责任。管理律师必须制定有效措施，确保律所内的所有律师遵守专业行为规则，监督律师必须监督下属律师和非律师助理，确保下属律师和非律师助理遵守规则。
These responsibilities have implications for the use of GAI tools by lawyers and nonlawyers. Managerial lawyers must establish clear policies regarding the law firm’s permissible use of GAI, and supervisory lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm’s lawyers and nonlawyers comply with their professional obligations when using GAI tools.
这些责任对律师和非律师使用GAI工具有影响。管理律师必须制定关于律所允许使用GAI的明确政策，监督律师必须做出合理努力，确保律所的律师和非律师在使用GAI工具时履行其专业义务。
Supervisory obligations also include ensuring that subordinate lawyers and nonlawyers are trained, including in the ethical and practical use of the GAI tools relevant to their work as well as on risks associated with relevant GAI use. Training could include the basics of GAI technology, the capabilities and limitations of the tools, ethical issues in use of GAI and best practices for secure data handling, privacy, and confidentiality.
监督义务还包括确保下属律师和非律师接受培训，包括在其工作相关的GAI工具的伦理和实际使用以及相关GAI使用的风险方面的培训。培训内容可以包括GAI技术的基础知识、工具的能力和局限性、GAI使用中的伦理问题以及安全数据处理、隐私和保密的最佳实践。
Lawyers have additional supervisory obligations insofar as they rely on others outside the law firm to employ GAI tools in connection with the legal representation. Model Rule5.3(b) imposes a duty on lawyers with direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer to make “reasonable efforts to ensure that” the nonlawyer’s conduct conforms with the professional obligations of the lawyer. Earlier opinions recognize that when outsourcing legal and nonlegal services to third-party providers, lawyers must ensure, for example, that the third party will do the work capably and protect the confidentiality of information relating to the representation. These opinions note the importance of: reference checks and vendor credentials; understanding vendor’s security policies and protocols; familiarity with vendor’s hiring practices; using confidentiality agreements; understanding the vendor’s conflicts check system to screen for adversity among firm clients; and the availability and accessibility of a legal forum for legal relief for violations of the vendor agreement. These concepts also apply to GAI providers and tools.
律师在依赖事务所外部人员使用GAI工具进行法律代理时，具有额外的监督义务。模型规则5.3(b)规定，律师对非律师人员具有直接监督权时，必须“采取合理努力确保”非律师人员的行为符合律师的职业义务。早期的意见指出，当将法律和非法律服务外包给第三方提供者时，律师必须确保例如第三方能够胜任工作并保护与代理相关的信息的保密性。这些意见强调了以下方面的重要性：参考检查和供应商资质；了解供应商的安全政策和协议；熟悉供应商的招聘实践；使用保密协议；了解供应商的利益冲突检查系统，以筛选事务所客户之间的对立关系；以及在供应商协议违规时获得法律救济的法律论坛的可用性和可访问性。这些概念同样适用于GAI提供者和工具。
Earlier opinions regarding technological innovations and other innovations in legal practice are instructive when considering a lawyer’s use of a GAI tool that requires the disclosure and storage of information relating to the representation. In particular, opinions developed to address cloud computing and outsourcing of legal and nonlegal services suggest that lawyers should:
• ensure that the [GAI tool] is configured to preserve the confidentiality and security of information, that the obligation is enforceable, and that the lawyer will be notified in the event of a breach or service of process regarding production of client information;
• investigate the [GAI tool’s] reliability, security measures, and policies, including limitations on the [the tool’s] liability;
• determine whether the [GAI tool] retains information submitted by the lawyer before and after the discontinuation of services or asserts proprietary rights to the information; and
• understand the risk that [GAI tool servers] are subject to their own failures and may be an attractive target of cyber-attacks.
早期关于技术创新和法律实践中其他创新的意见在考虑律师使用需要披露和存储与代理相关的信息的GAI工具时具有指导意义。特别是，针对云计算和法律及非法律服务外包而制定的意见建议律师应：
• 确保[GAI工具]配置为保密和安全信息，该义务是可执行的，并且在发生客户信息生产的违规或服务过程时律师将被通知；
• 调查[GAI工具]的可靠性、安全措施和政策，包括[工具]责任的限制；
• 确定[GAI工具]在服务中止前后是否保留律师提交的信息或声称对信息拥有专有权；以及
•了解[GAI工具服务器]可能面临自身故障的风险，并且可能成为网络攻击的吸引目标。
Model Rule1.5, which governs lawyers’ fees and expenses, applies to representations in which a lawyer charges the client for the use of GAI. Rule1.5(a) requires a lawyer’s fees and expenses to be reasonable and includes a non-exclusive list of criteria for evaluating whether a fee or expense is reasonable. Rule1.5(b) requires a lawyer to communicate to a client the basis on which the lawyer will charge for fees and expenses unless the client is a regularly represented client and the terms are not changing. The required information must be communicated before or within a reasonable time of commencing the representation, preferably in writing. Therefore, before charging the client for the use of the GAI tools or services, the lawyer must explain the basis for the charge, preferably in writing.
模型规则1.5适用于律师使用GAI向客户收费的代理情况，该规则管理律师的费用和开支。规则1.5(a)要求律师的费用和开支要合理，并包含一个非排他性的标准列表，以评估费用或开支是否合理。规则1.5(b)要求律师向客户说明收费的基础，除非客户是经常代表的客户且条款没有变化。所需的信息必须在开始代理之前或在合理的时间内传达，最好是书面形式。因此，在向客户收取GAI工具或服务的费用之前，律师必须解释收费的基础，最好是书面形式。
GAI tools may provide lawyers with a faster and more efficient way to render legal services to their clients, but lawyers who bill clients an hourly rate for time spent on a matter must bill for their actual time. ABA Formal Ethics Opinion93-379 explained, “the lawyer who has agreed to bill on the basis of hours expended does not fulfill her ethical duty if she bills the client for more time than she has actually expended on the client’s behalf.” If a lawyer uses a GAI tool to draft a pleading and expends15 minutes to input the relevant information into the GAI program, the lawyer may charge for the15 minutes as well as for the time the lawyer expends to review the resulting draft for accuracy and completeness. As further explained in Opinion93-379, “If a lawyer has agreed to charge the client on [an hourly] basis and it turns out that the lawyer is particularly efficient in accomplishing a given result, it nonetheless will not be permissible to charge the client for more hours than were actually expended on the matter,” because “[t]he client should only be charged a reasonable fee for the legal services performed.” The “goal should be solely to compensate the lawyer fully for time reasonably expended, an approach that if followed will not take advantage of the client.”
GAI工具可能为律师提供更快速和更高效的方式来向客户提供法律服务，但按小时收费的律师必须按实际时间收费。ABA正式伦理意见93-379解释道，“同意按花费的时间收费的律师，如果向客户收取的时间超过她实际上花费在客户事务上的时间，则未履行其伦理义务。”如果律师使用GAI工具起草诉状，并花费15分钟将相关信息输入GAI程序，律师可以收取15分钟的费用以及律师花费的时间来审查结果草稿的准确性和完整性。正如意见93-379进一步解释的那样，“如果律师同意按[小时]收费，并且事实证明律师在完成给定结果方面特别高效，那么仍然不允许向客户收取超过实际花费在该事务上的时间的费用，”因为“[客户]应只为所提供的法律服务支付合理费用。” “目标应仅仅是充分补偿律师合理花费的时间，这种方法如果遵循，将不会利用客户。”
The factors set forth in Rule1.5(a) also apply when evaluating the reasonableness of charges for GAI tools when the lawyer and client agree on a flat or contingent fee. For example, if using a GAI tool enables a lawyer to complete tasks much more quickly than without the tool, it may be unreasonable under Rule1.5 for the lawyer to charge the same flat fee when using the GAI tool as when not using it. “A fee charged for which little or no work was performed is an unreasonable fee.”
规则1.5(a)中规定的因素也适用于在律师和客户同意固定费用或或有费用时评估GAI工具费用的合理性。例如，如果使用GAI工具使律师能够比不使用工具更快地完成任务，那么根据规则1.5，律师在使用GAI工具时收取与不使用工具时相同的固定费用可能是不合理的。“为几乎没有或没有工作而收取的费用是不合理的费用。”
The principles set forth in ABA Formal Opinion93-379 also apply when a lawyer charges GAI work as an expense. Rule1.5(a) requires that disbursements, out-of-pocket expenses, or additional charges be reasonable. Formal Opinion93-379 explained that a lawyer may charge the client for disbursements incurred in providing legal services to the client. For example, a lawyer typically may bill to the client the actual cost incurred in paying a court reporter to transcribe a deposition or the actual cost to travel to an out-of-town hearing. Absent contrary disclosure to the client, the lawyer should not add a surcharge to the actual cost of such expenses and should pass along to the client any discounts the lawyer receives from a third-party provider. At the same time, lawyers may not bill clients for general office overhead expenses including the routine costs of “maintaining a library, securing malpractice insurance, renting of office space, purchasing utilities, and the like.” Formal Opinion93-379 noted, “[i]n the absence of disclosure to a client in advance of the engagement to the contrary,” such overhead should be “subsumed within” the lawyer’s charges for professional services.
ABA正式意见93-379中规定的原则也适用于律师将GAI工作作为开支收费的情况。规则1.5(a)要求支出、自掏腰包的费用或额外费用要合理。正式意见93-379解释道，律师可以向客户收取在向客户提供法律服务过程中产生的支出。例如，律师通常可以向客户收取支付法庭记者记录口供的实际费用或前往外地听证会的实际费用。在没有向客户披露相反情况的情况下，律师不应在这些费用的实际成本上加收附加费，并应将律师从第三方提供者那里获得的任何折扣转嫁给客户。同时，律师不得向客户收取包括“维护图书馆、购买职业责任保险、租赁办公空间、购买公用事业等”在内的一般办公间接费用。正式意见93-379指出，“[在没有提前向客户披露相反情况的情况下]，这些间接费用应‘包含在’律师的专业服务费用中。”
In applying the principles set out in ABA Formal Ethics Opinion93-379 to a lawyer’s use of a GAI tool, lawyers should analyze the characteristics and uses of each GAI tool, because the types, uses, and cost of GAI tools and services vary significantly. To the extent a particular tool or service functions similarly to equipping and maintaining a legal practice, a lawyer should consider its cost to be overhead and not charge the client for its cost absent a contrary disclosure to the client in advance. For example, when a lawyer uses a GAI tool embedded in or added to the lawyer’s word processing software to check grammar in documents the lawyer drafts, the cost of the tool should be considered to be overhead. In contrast, when a lawyer uses a third-party provider’s GAI service to review thousands of voluminous contracts for a particular client and the provider charges the lawyer for using the tool on a per-use basis, it would ordinarily be reasonable for the lawyer to bill the client as an expense for the actual out-of-pocket expense incurred for using that tool.
在将ABA正式伦理意见93-379中规定的原则应用于律师使用GAI工具时，律师应分析每个GAI工具的特性和用途，因为GAI工具和服务的类型、用途和成本差异显著。在某个工具或服务的功能类似于配备和维护法律实践的情况下，律师应将其成本视为间接费用，除非事先向客户披露相反情况，否则不应向客户收取其成本。例如，当律师使用嵌入或添加到律师文字处理软件中的GAI工具检查律师起草文件中的语法时，该工具的成本应视为间接费用。相比之下，当律师使用第三方提供者的GAI服务审查特定客户的数千份庞大合同，并且提供者按次收费时，通常情况下律师向客户收取使用该工具的实际自掏腰包费用是合理的。
As acknowledged in ABA Formal Opinion93-379, perhaps the most difficult issue is determining how to charge clients for providing in-house services that are not required to be included in general office overhead and for which the lawyer seeks reimbursement. The opinion concluded that lawyers may pass on reasonable charges for “photocopying, computer research, . . . and similar items” rather than absorbing these expenses as part of the lawyers’ overhead as many lawyers would do. For example, a lawyer may agree with the client in advance on the specific rate for photocopying, such as $0.15 per page. Absent an advance agreement, the lawyer “is obliged to charge the client no more than the direct cost associated with the service (i.e., the actual cost of making a copy on the photocopy machine) plus a reasonable allocation of overhead expenses directly associated with the provision of the service (e.g., the salary of the photocopy machine operator).”
正如ABA正式意见93-379所承认的那样，也许最困难的问题是确定如何向客户收费以提供不必包含在一般办公间接费用中的内部服务，并且律师希望得到报销。意见得出结论，律师可以将“复印、计算机研究……和类似项目”的合理费用转嫁给客户，而不是像许多律师那样将这些费用吸收到律师的间接费用中。例如，律师可以事先与客户商定复印的具体费率，例如每页0.15美元。在没有提前协议的情况下，律师“有义务向客户收取不超过与服务相关的直接成本（即在复印机上复印的实际成本）加上与提供服务直接相关的合理间接费用分配（例如复印机操作员的工资）的费用。”
These same principles apply when a lawyer uses a proprietary, in-house GAI tool in rendering legal services to a client. A firm may have made a substantial investment in developing a GAI tool that is relatively unique and that enables the firm to perform certain work more quickly or effectively. The firm may agree in advance with the client about the specific rates to be charged for using a GAI tool, just as it would agree in advance on its legal fees. But not all in-house GAI tools are likely to be so special or costly to develop, and the firm may opt not to seek the client’s agreement on expenses for using the technology. Absent an agreement, the firm may charge the client no more than the direct cost associated with the tool (if any) plus a reasonable allocation of expenses directly associated with providing the GAI tool, while providing appropriate disclosures to the client consistent with Formal Opinion93-379. The lawyer must ensure that the amount charged is not duplicative of other charges to this or other clients.
这些相同的原则适用于律师在向客户提供法律服务时使用专有的内部GAI工具。公司可能在开发相对独特的GAI工具上进行了大量投资，这使得公司能够更快速或更有效地完成某些工作。公司可以事先与客户商定使用GAI工具的具体费率，就像事先商定法律费用一样。但并非所有内部GAI工具都可能如此特殊或开发成本高昂，公司可能选择不寻求客户对使用技术费用的同意。在没有协议的情况下，公司可以向客户收取不超过与工具相关的直接成本（如果有的话）加上与提供GAI工具直接相关的合理费用分配的费用，同时向客户提供与正式意见93-379一致的适当披露。律师必须确保收取的费用不重复收取给该客户或其他客户的其他费用。
Finally, on the issue of reasonable fees, in addition to the time lawyers spend using various GAI tools and services, lawyers also will expend time to gain knowledge about those tools and services. Rule1.1 recognizes that “[c]ompetent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” Comment [8] explains that “[t]o maintain the requisite knowledge and skill [to be competent], a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engaging in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.” Lawyers must remember that they may not charge clients for time necessitated by their own inexperience. Therefore, a lawyer may not charge a client to learn about how to use a GAI tool or service that the lawyer will regularly use for clients because lawyers must maintain competence in the tools they use, including but not limited to GAI technology. However, if a client explicitly requests that a specific GAI tool be used in furtherance of the matter and the lawyer is not knowledgeable in using that tool, it may be appropriate for the lawyer to bill the client to gain the knowledge to use the tool effectively. Before billing the client, the lawyer and the client should agree upon any new billing practices or billing terms relating to the GAI tool and, preferably, memorialize the new agreement.
最后，在合理费用的问题上，除了律师花费时间使用各种GAI工具和服务外，律师还将花费时间来获取有关这些工具和服务的知识。规则1.1承认“[胜任的代理需要合理必要的法律知识、技能、细致和准备。”评论[8]解释说，“[为了保持胜任的必要知识和技能，律师应跟上法律及其实践的变化，包括相关技术的好处和风险，参与持续的学习和教育，并遵守律师所需的所有持续法律教育要求。”律师必须记住，他们不能向客户收取因自己缺乏经验而需要的时间。因此，律师不能向客户收取学习如何使用律师将定期为客户使用的GAI工具或服务的费用，因为律师必须保持对他们使用的工具的胜任，包括但不限于GAI技术。然而，如果客户明确要求使用特定的GAI工具来推进事务，而律师不熟悉该工具的使用，那么律师向客户收取获取使用该工具的知识的费用可能是合适的。在向客户收费之前，律师和客户应就与GAI工具相关的任何新收费实践或收费条款达成一致，并最好将新协议记录在案。
III. Conclusion
III.结论
Lawyers using GAI tools have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature of GAI. In using GAI tools, lawyers also have other relevant ethical duties, such as those relating to confidentiality, communication with a client, meritorious claims and contentions, candor toward the tribunal, supervisory responsibilities regarding others in the law office using the technology and those outside the law office providing GAI services, and charging reasonable fees. With the ever-evolving use of technology by lawyers and courts, lawyers must be vigilant in complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure that lawyers are adhering to their ethical responsibilities and that clients are protected.
使用GAI工具的律师有能力义务，包括保持相关的技术能力，这需要理解GAI的不断发展。在使用GAI工具时，律师还需履行其他相关的伦理义务，例如涉及保密性、与客户的沟通、正当的主张和争论、对法庭的诚实、对在律师事务所内使用该技术的其他人以及提供GAI服务的外部人员的监督责任，以及收取合理费用。随着律师和法院对技术的不断使用，律师必须警惕遵守职业行为规范，以确保律师履行其伦理责任并保护客户。
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Mary McDermott, Lead Senior Counsel
©2024 by the American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
美国律师协会伦理与职业责任常设委员会
职业责任中心：Mary McDermott, 首席高级顾问
©2024 美国律师协会版权所有。
重磅福利
关注“法律检索”公众号，后台回复“暑期学校”即可获取首届“大数据与法律检索”暑期学校课程PPT。回复“PPT”即可获得中国大学MOOC《大数据与法律检索》主讲人在深圳律协授课的PPT（六百多页干货）。
深圳律协培训课程《律师法律检索核心技能》B站地址（点击文后阅读原文即可观看）
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV18y4y137xu/
扫下方海报二维码即可免费学习中国大学MOOC《大数据与法律检索》第八期课程（有重要更新）