What do the bar rules require before a lawyer uses AI on client matters?
Index data last verified
The obligations are written down and they belong to the lawyer, not to the software. Competence, confidentiality, communication with the client, supervision of the work, reasonable fees and candour to the court all continue to apply, and the American Bar Association addressed generative AI directly in Formal Opinion 512 in 2024, with a growing number of state bars issuing their own guidance that differs on the points that matter most, including client consent. No vendor can discharge a lawyer's duty. What a vendor can do is publish the artifacts that make discharging it practical, and on that the market is largely silent. Of 463 legal AI vendors recorded by the AI Legal Index, 2 publish a mapping of their product to named ethics opinions across more than one jurisdiction, 43 engage in public with even one named opinion, 169 refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming any guidance, and 248 publish nothing located on the subject at all.
The duty is the lawyer’s and the applicable rules vary by jurisdiction, so this page does not tell anyone what their obligations are and is not a substitute for reading the guidance that binds them. What an index can do is answer the question the guidance leaves open, which is what the market has published against it. The AI Legal Index records four professional responsibility signals on every vendor and grades all of them on UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture. Those five records are what the rest of this page reports.
Has the vendor engaged with the guidance its buyers are bound by?
Named guidance addressedNot whether the vendor claims to take ethics seriously. Whether it has read the opinions its customers are governed by and published something a firm can hand to its own risk committee.
Below the named tier, 169 vendors refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming any guidance, and 248 of 463 publish nothing located on the subject. A signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
What happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Ethics guidance is direct that a lawyer bills for time actually spent, so a product that compresses six hours into one has changed the invoice and not only the workflow. 272 of 463 vendors claim time savings in their public materials while publishing nothing about billing, fee or disclosure treatment. 1 publish both a per matter record of AI assisted work and guidance on how to treat it on the bill. 12 emit a usable record with no published fee guidance: Anaqua, ContractKen, Counsel Stack, HAQQ, Neota Logic, Qanooni, Referent, Trailmate, Truth Systems, Vesence, Vulcan Technologies and VXT. 31 address none of it. The gap between marketing hours saved to the buyer and staying silent on the client's side of that same equation is the most commercially uncomfortable finding in this index, and it is also the easiest one for a vendor to fix.
This question has its own page, with the record tier crossed against published pricing: how should a law firm bill for AI assisted work.
Vendors that emit a record of AI assisted work
Audit record onlyIf a judge requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Exportable disclosure recordA number of judges now require filers to disclose whether generative AI was used and to certify that citations were checked by a human. Answering that honestly means knowing which model produced which passage, what was retrieved and who verified it. 4 of 463 vendors export a document level record covering all three. 268 produce some of it, short of a document level export. 4 publish guidance or a template with no product support behind it, and 186 publish nothing on court disclosure or verification certification. The certifying signature belongs to the lawyer either way. The difference is whether the record behind it takes two minutes to produce or has to be reconstructed from memory.
This question has its own page, built around the three lines a standing order asks for and crossed with whether the law behind the record was checked: can legal AI tools produce an AI disclosure record for a court.
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause?
Disclosure pack publishedCorporate clients have started writing AI terms into outside counsel guidelines, which reverses the direction of diligence. The firm now has to evidence its vendor to its own client, and the artifacts are a current subprocessor list, a statement of which model providers see client content, and something forwardable.
A further 158 publish a current subprocessor or model provider list without the client facing material around it. 91 hold the material behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement, which is the tier worth watching, because a firm under a client deadline experiences on request as absent. 171 of 457 publish nothing that supports a client side disclosure obligation.
The graded axis behind these four records
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture asks whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice, competence and supervision duties and jurisdiction limits. Across 463 vendors: 24 A, 230 B, 104 C and 104 D.
Graded A on the axis
AA on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureThe vendor states plainly what the product is and is not, who may use it, and how it supports a lawyer’s competence and supervision duties. Jurisdiction limits are named and any consumer facing surface carries a clear disclosure.Graded B on the axis
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.ActionstepIntake & Client Development
AgiloftContract Review & Drafting
AI Demand ProPlaintiff & Claims AI
AI.LawLitigation & eDiscovery
Align ResearchLegal Research
Alt LegalIP & Patents
AltumatimLitigation & eDiscovery
AmplifiedIP & Patents
AnnlexLegal Research
Aptus.AILegal Research
Aracor AIContract Review & Drafting
Aranzadi AllegraLegal Research
AscentAIRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
AthennianLegal Ops & Spend
AugustGeneral Legal Assistants
AvvokaContract Review & Drafting
BigleContract Review & Drafting
BindContract Review & Drafting
BlackBoilerContract Review & Drafting
BleeRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
Bloomberg LawLegal Research
Blue JLegal Research
BounselContract Review & Drafting
BriefCatchLitigation & eDiscovery
BrightflagLegal Ops & Spend
BRYTERLegal Ops & Spend
BusyLampLegal Ops & Spend
CARET LegalIntake & Client Development
CaseBlinkIntake & Client Development
CasefleetLitigation & eDiscovery
CaseGenIntake & Client Development
CaseGlideLegal Ops & Spend
CaseMarkLitigation & eDiscovery
CaseMineLegal Research
CasePeerPlaintiff & Claims AI
CasepointLitigation & eDiscovery
CasewayLegal Research
CentariContract Review & Drafting
ClearbriefLitigation & eDiscovery
ClmentContract Review & Drafting
CobbleStone SoftwareContract Review & Drafting
ConcordaLitigation & eDiscovery
Conga CLMContract Review & Drafting
ContractbookContract Review & Drafting
ContractHeroContract Review & Drafting
ContractifyContract Review & Drafting
ContractKenContract Review & Drafting
ContractWorksContract Review & Drafting
Counsel StackLegal Research
CounselLink+Legal Ops & Spend
CounselProLitigation & eDiscovery
DeepIPIP & Patents
Depositions by FilevineLitigation & eDiscovery
DiliforceLegal Ops & Spend
DocJurisContract Review & Drafting
Docket AlarmLegal Research
DocsumContract Review & Drafting
Docusign CLMContract Review & Drafting
DodonaiLitigation & eDiscovery
DraftPilotContract Review & Drafting
Drafty AIIntake & Client Development
Dragon LegalGeneral Legal Assistants
eBreviaContract Review & Drafting
EdgeIP & Patents
Epiq AILitigation & eDiscovery
EsquireTekPlaintiff & Claims AI
EstateScribeGeneral Legal Assistants
EthycaRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
EverchronLitigation & eDiscovery
ExterroLitigation & eDiscovery
FilereadLitigation & eDiscovery
FilevinePlaintiff & Claims AI
FirmPilotIntake & Client Development
fynkContract Review & Drafting
Gaius-LexLegal Research
GatekeeperContract Review & Drafting
GavelContract Review & Drafting
GC AIGeneral Legal Assistants
GenIA-LLegal Research
Genie AIGeneral Legal Assistants
GistGeneral Legal Assistants
HAQQGeneral Legal Assistants
HarveyGeneral Legal Assistants
HelloCounselIntake & Client Development
HighQLegal Ops & Spend
HonaIntake & Client Development
HyperStart CLMContract Review & Drafting
Iberley IALegal Research
InhouseGeneral Legal Assistants
InnovationQ+IP & Patents
Intelligize+ AILegal Research
ipQuantsIP & Patents
IvoContract Review & Drafting
JUPUSIntake & Client Development
Jurisage TOA BuilderLitigation & eDiscovery
JurisphereGeneral Legal Assistants
JusticeTextLitigation & eDiscovery
KetchRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
KLDiscovery NebulaLitigation & eDiscovery
Kleos Expert AIGeneral Legal Assistants
Knovos DiscoveryLitigation & eDiscovery
Law InsiderContract Review & Drafting
Law RulerIntake & Client Development
LawdifyLitigation & eDiscovery
LawliftContract Review & Drafting
LawpathGeneral Legal Assistants
LawVuLegal Ops & Spend
LawXLegal Ops & Spend
LBOXLegal Research
Lead DocketIntake & Client Development
LEAPIntake & Client Development
Learned HandGeneral Legal Assistants
LeegalityContract Review & Drafting
Legal DecoderLegal Ops & Spend
LegalBridgeIntake & Client Development
LegalSifterContract Review & Drafting
LegartisContract Review & Drafting
LegistifyLegal Ops & Spend
LegiswayLegal Ops & Spend
LegitQuestLegal Research
LexagleContract Review & Drafting
LexbeLitigation & eDiscovery
Lexis+ AILegal Research
Lexlegis.aiLegal Research
LexroomLegal Research
Lextel AILegal Research
LexzurLegal Ops & Spend
LighthouseLitigation & eDiscovery
LiteraGeneral Legal Assistants
Litmas AILitigation & eDiscovery
LucioGeneral Legal Assistants
LuliusLegal Research
LuminanceContract Review & Drafting
LuminaryGeneral Legal Assistants
LuplLegal Ops & Spend
MagnarGeneral Legal Assistants
Maite.aiLegal Research
ManupatraLegal Research
MarqVisionIP & Patents
Mary TechnologyLitigation & eDiscovery
MinuteBoxLegal Ops & Spend
MiramisContract Review & Drafting
MitratechLegal Ops & Spend
NeosPlaintiff & Claims AI
Neota LogicLegal Ops & Spend
netLexContract Review & Drafting
Noetica AIContract Review & Drafting
Norm AiRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
Normo.aiLegal Research
NovoPlaintiff & Claims AI
NoxtuaGeneral Legal Assistants
OmnilexLegal Research
One LEGALELegal Research
OneflowContract Review & Drafting
OnitX CLMContract Review & Drafting
OnitX ELMLegal Ops & Spend
OntraLegal Ops & Spend
OpenText eDiscoveryLitigation & eDiscovery
OrbitalGeneral Legal Assistants
OrdalieGeneral Legal Assistants
Otto Schmidt AnswersLegal Research
PactlyContract Review & Drafting
ParachuteGeneral Legal Assistants
ParleyIntake & Client Development
Patent BotsIP & Patents
PatentcloudIP & Patents
PatentPalIP & Patents
PatlyticsIP & Patents
PaximalIP & Patents
Paxton AIGeneral Legal Assistants
PlexusLegal Ops & Spend
PowerPatentIP & Patents
PreciselyContract Review & Drafting
PrevailLitigation & eDiscovery
ProPlaintiffPlaintiff & Claims AI
ProvakilLegal Ops & Spend
Prudencia.aiGeneral Legal Assistants
qatentIP & Patents
QuestelIP & Patents
QuiliaIntake & Client Development
QuraLegal Research
Rain IntelligenceIntake & Client Development
RazorSignLegal Ops & Spend
Red MarkerRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
Red PointsIP & Patents
ReferentIntake & Client Development
Reflekt LegalIntake & Client Development
RegologyRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
ResponsivRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
Robin AIContract Review & Drafting
RuliGeneral Legal Assistants
SagaGeneral Legal Assistants
SaifrRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
SandstoneLegal Ops & Spend
Sapient-IALegal Research
ScorpionIntake & Client Development
SecuritiRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
SilexLegal Research
SimpleLegalLegal Ops & Spend
SimpliciterLegal Research
SingleFileRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
SixFiftyRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
SkribeLitigation & eDiscovery
SmarshLitigation & eDiscovery
SmartAdvocatePlaintiff & Claims AI
Solve IntelligenceIP & Patents
SpellbookContract Review & Drafting
SpotDraftContract Review & Drafting
StenoLitigation & eDiscovery
Streamline AILegal Ops & Spend
Theta LakeLitigation & eDiscovery
Thomson Reuters Document IntelligenceContract Review & Drafting
ThoughtRiverContract Review & Drafting
TomorroContract Review & Drafting
Top24 Diritto AILegal Research
TrailmateIntake & Client Development
TrustArcRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
Turbo LawLitigation & eDiscovery
TuriviusLegal Research
UniCourtLegal Research
Unity ELMLegal Ops & Spend
Venio SystemsLitigation & eDiscovery
VerbitLitigation & eDiscovery
VesenceGeneral Legal Assistants
Vincent AILegal Research
Visalaw AIIntake & Client Development
VXTLegal Ops & Spend
WordsmithGeneral Legal Assistants
XakiaLegal Ops & Spend
XLSCOUTIP & Patents
What the index cannot tell you
Whether any particular use of any particular product satisfies any particular rule. That depends on the jurisdiction, the matter, the client and the lawyer, and it is not a question an index answers. A vendor publishing nothing about ethics guidance is a statement about that vendor’s disclosure and not about anyone’s compliance. Nothing here is legal advice.
The records also reach only as far as public material. A vendor that walks a firm through all of this in a procurement call and publishes none of it grades on what it published, and an absence is dated: it means not located in public sources on the date shown, redated the day the vendor publishes. The reason the published position still matters is that a procurement call leaves no artifact, and an artifact is what a firm hands to its risk committee, its client, or a court asking what steps were taken.
Every record behind this page carries a source basis and a verification date. Standards and limits are on the methodology page. The confidentiality duty is answered on what happens to privilege when a law firm uses a third party AI tool and on do legal AI vendors train their models on client data, the competence and verification side is on which AI legal research tools publish their hallucination or accuracy rates, the attestation half of the outside counsel guideline pair is on which legal AI vendors publish SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification, the billing and fee question is answered at length on how should a law firm bill for AI assisted work, and the complete vendor set is in the directory.