Ohio Hands Down AI Guidance for Lawyers and Judges

Here is my recent Daily Record column. My past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.

****

Ohio Hands Down AI Guidance for Lawyers and Judges

Another day, another state issues AI guidance for lawyers and judges. This time, it’s the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, which released “Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers” in April, a concise,16-page document that covers a wide range of ethical issues. (Online: https://www.bpc.ohio.gov/_files/ugd/c6a571_bae3fbcec80a4efeb99df928989e6811.pdf)

The Board first tackles lawyers’ obligations, and apparently has just about had it with all of the hallucinated case citations. Throughout the guide, variations of the word “verify” appear at least seven times. For example, “a lawyer should never rely solely on the output of an AI tool without independently verifying it against the original source materials.” The Board clarifies this requirement in an interesting way, explaining that attorneys’ level of knowledge and experience with both the subject matter at issue and AI tools generally necessarily affects their level of reliance on—and review of— AI-generated output.

The Board also addresses the obligation to protect client confidentiality, which is a top priority when using any technology. After analyzing what other ethics committees have concluded about this issue, it reached a surprising determination: that no client details should be entered into AI tools. It explained that “(r)egardless of the AI tool utilized, lawyers should always anonymize client information and refrain from inputting details that could lead to the discovery of the client’s identity.” This unusual and blanket requirement goes too far and will not withstand the test of time. Many trusted legal platforms, such as law practice management and document management software, include tightly embedded AI functionality and also store confidential client information. The Ohio Board’s overly broad mandate would preclude reliance on many of the tried-and-true software tools used in firms for both the business and the practice of law.

Next, AI’s impact on billing was addressed, with the Board reaching the same conclusion as other committees: time saved as a result of AI tools must be passed on to clients, whether the attorney is billing hourly or otherwise, and all legal fees must be reasonable. 

The Board turned to AI governance, emphasizing the pressing need for firms to prioritize AI training and policies. Their recommendation is timely, as AI use in firms is increasing rapidly, while governance has fallen behind. According to the 8am 2026 Legal Industry Report, 69% of legal professionals surveyed have used general-purpose AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT for legal work, but only 11% of firms have established AI training, and only 9% have an enforceable AI policy.

In other words, your employees are already using AI, so there’s no better time than now to follow the Board’s advice and ensure “the implementation of appropriate internal policies and procedures and regular instruction and supervision of staff.” 

Judge’s AI obligations were also discussed. The Board emphasized that while AI can assist with judicial work, it should never be used “to decide the ultimate conclusion or decision in a case.”

According to the Board, there are a number of ways AI can be implemented in chambers, including research and summarization, draft editing, verifying the accuracy of party claims, workflow optimization, and case organization. However, “judges are advised to avoid using AI to produce the first draft of a decision, especially in light of the need for judges to exercise independent judicial decision-making”

The Board explained that the most appropriate way for judges to approach AI is to treat it “like a first-year law clerk and double-check all citations, propositions of law, and quotes in the record if any AI tool has been used. “

This guidance—the latest in a growing list of AI ethics opinions, formal guidance, and policy frameworks—is worth reading in its entirety. The overarching message is consistent: AI is no longer experimental and is already embedded in the day-to-day work of lawyers and judges, who are expected to understand how to use it responsibly. AI is here, and it’s not going away. Legal professionals who thrive in the coming years will learn how to use AI competently, supervise it appropriately, and implement thoughtful policies around it. Ignore it to your own detriment. 

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise.She is the nationally-recognized author of "Cloud Computing for Lawyers" (2012) and co-authors "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier" (2010), both published by the American Bar Association. She also co-authors "Criminal Law in New York," a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for Above the Law, ABA Journal, and The Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. She is an ABA Legal Rebel, and is listed on the Fastcase 50 and ABA LTRC Women in Legal Tech. She can be contacted at niki.black@mycase.com.