# Do You Have to Tell Clients You Used AI?

> When does a lawyer need client informed consent to use AI? A fact-specific walkthrough under ABA Opinion 512, the factors that decide it, and state variation.

[Home](https://rankshieldlegal.com/) / [Blog](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/) / AI Confidentiality Confidentiality & consent
# Do You Have to Tell Your Client You Used AI? An Informed-Consent Walkthrough Under ABA Opinion 512
It depends. ABA Formal Opinion 512 does not set a single rule that says always disclose or never disclose. Whether you need a client's informed consent before using AI on a matter turns on the tool, the data, and what your engagement letter already covers. This is a walkthrough of the factors, not a yes-or-no answer, and it is informational, not legal advice.

By [Jamie Kloncz](https://rankshieldlegal.com/about/), Founder, RankShield ** 21 min read ** Published July 9, 2026

It depends, and that is the honest answer. ABA Formal Opinion 512 does not create a single rule that says a lawyer must always disclose AI use or never has to. Whether you need a client's informed consent before using a generative AI tool on a matter is a fact-specific question that turns on what the tool does with inputs, whether those inputs include confidential client information, and what your engagement letter already addresses. The sections below walk through the factors that move the analysis rather than handing you a checkbox.
This piece is written by a founder who builds verification tools for law firms, not by an attorney, and it is general information rather than legal advice on any specific matter. The point is to lay out how Opinion 512 frames the confidentiality question, why that question is separate from evidentiary privilege, and which facts tend to push a given AI use toward needing consent or away from it. Where the analysis gets genuinely unsettled, this article says so, and it points you back to your own licensed counsel and your jurisdiction's rules for the decision itself.

## The short answer is that it depends on the tool and the data
Opinion 512 says a lawyer may need informed consent before putting client information into a self-learning AI tool. "May" is doing real work. The answer depends on the tool and the data, not on a fixed rule.
There is no bright-line rule that a lawyer must announce every use of AI to a client. ABA Formal Opinion 512, issued in July 2024, frames AI use as implicating several professional duties at once, and on the confidentiality duty it says that before inputting information relating to the representation into a self-learning generative AI tool, a lawyer may need the client's informed consent [[1]](#ref-1). The word that carries the weight there is "may." The opinion is guidance, and the analysis is fact-specific rather than automatic.
That framing matters because two lawyers can reach different, defensible answers for the same task depending on the tools they use and the data they handle. A lawyer summarizing a public appellate opinion in a consumer chatbot is in a different position from a lawyer pasting a client's confidential settlement terms into that same tool. A lawyer using an enterprise system with a contractual no-training and zero-retention commitment is in a different position again. The question is not simply "did you use AI," it is "what did the tool do with what you gave it, and was any of it confidential."
So the useful move is not to hunt for a universal rule that does not exist. It is to learn which facts push a specific use toward needing consent and which facts push it away, then run that analysis honestly on each matter. The rest of this article does that, keeps the ethical confidentiality duty separate from the evidentiary privilege question throughout, and ends where any responsible version of this has to end, which is with your own counsel and your jurisdiction's adopted rules.

## "Do I have to tell my client" is really two questions
The question sounds like one thing and is actually two. The first is ethical: does using an AI tool on this matter trigger a professional duty to inform the client and obtain consent? That question lives under the confidentiality duty in Model Rule 1.6, which is where Opinion 512 grounds its AI guidance [[1]](#ref-1) [[2]](#ref-2). The second is evidentiary: does routing client material through an AI system risk waiving attorney-client privilege? That question is decided by courts, case by case, and it is genuinely unsettled.
These two questions run on separate tracks, and a clean answer to one does not answer the other. A lawyer can satisfy every consent and competence expectation in Opinion 512 and still face an open question about whether a specific disclosure affected privilege. Conversely, a use that raises no privilege issue at all can still require consent under the confidentiality duty if it puts client-identifiable information into a self-learning tool. Treating "I used enterprise AI" as if it disposes of both questions is a category error.
This article is about the first question, the confidentiality and informed-consent duty that Opinion 512 addresses [[1]](#ref-1). It touches the privilege question only to keep it visibly separate, because conflating the two is the single most common way firms talk themselves into a false sense of safety. For a deeper treatment of the evidentiary side, see [our walkthrough on AI and attorney-client privilege](https://rankshieldlegal.com/attorney-client-privilege-ai/) and the isolation question in [proving privileged data never reached a model](https://rankshieldlegal.com/prove-privileged-data-never-reached-ai/).
Confidentiality and privilege are different duties, enforced by different authorities at different times. This article is about the confidentiality and consent question, not about when privilege is waived.

Source: ABA Formal Op. 512; The Florida Bar Download SVG

## What ABA Formal Opinion 512 actually says about consent
Opinion 512 does not treat AI as a single problem with a single fix. It identifies a set of Model Rules that generative AI use can implicate, including competence under Rule 1.1, communication under Rule 1.4, confidentiality under Rule 1.6, candor to the tribunal under Rule 3.3, supervision under Rules 5.1 and 5.3, and reasonable fees under Rule 1.5 [[1]](#ref-1). The consent question sits inside the confidentiality duty, but it does not stand alone, because a consent a lawyer cannot competently explain is not a meaningful consent.
On confidentiality specifically, the opinion's structure is conditional rather than absolute. Before inputting information relating to the representation into a self-learning generative AI tool, a lawyer may need the client's informed consent [[1]](#ref-1). That framing does two things at once. It flags a real duty that boilerplate does not satisfy, and it declines to convert that duty into a mechanical rule that fires on every AI interaction regardless of the facts. The lawyer still has to do the analysis.
Reading the opinion as a single consent checkbox misses how it works. It also ties competence and supervision to the same use, so that the responsible lawyer understands the tool well enough to judge its risks, and the firm oversees how associates and staff deploy it [[1]](#ref-1). Those obligations travel together. Consent without competence produces a disclosure the lawyer cannot honestly stand behind, and competence without supervision leaves the tool being used in ways no one is watching.

- **Confidentiality** Under Rule 1.6, a lawyer may need the client's informed consent before inputting information relating to the representation into a self-learning generative AI tool [[1]](#ref-1).
- **Competence** Under Rule 1.1, the responsible lawyer should understand the tool well enough to judge how it handles inputs and what the risks are [[1]](#ref-1).
- **Supervision** Under Rules 5.1 and 5.3, the firm oversees how lawyers and nonlawyer staff use these tools, so use sits inside policy rather than being ad hoc [[1]](#ref-1).
Opinion 512 is ethics guidance, not a bright-line rule. It says a lawyer may need consent, and it leaves the determination fact-specific.

## Why confidentiality here is not the same as evidentiary privilege
Consent under Opinion 512 addresses the ethical confidentiality duty. It is not a determination that privilege is preserved. Whether AI use waives privilege is a separate, unsettled question for courts.
It is worth stating plainly, because the distinction does real work throughout this analysis. The duty Opinion 512 addresses is the ethical duty of confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6, which covers all information relating to a representation, whether or not anything is ever litigated [[1]](#ref-1) [[2]](#ref-2). Evidentiary privilege is a narrower protection that can keep certain lawyer-client communications out of a proceeding, and it can be waived by disclosure to a third party.
The confidentiality duty is enforced continuously, by bar regulators and by the client relationship, and it applies to every matter a lawyer touches. Privilege only becomes a live issue when someone tries to compel a communication in a proceeding and the lawyer resists on the ground that it is protected. So the day-to-day discipline around AI is a confidentiality discipline, and privilege is a separate risk that can surface later, on a different timeline, in front of a different decision-maker.
Whether using an AI tool waives privilege is an unsettled legal question that courts decide on the facts. Opinion 512 does not resolve it, and this article does not claim to. When you see consent discussed below, read it as the confidentiality duty under Rule 1.6, not as a control over privilege waiver. Keeping these two apart is how a firm avoids answering the easier ethical question and quietly assuming the harder evidentiary one took care of itself.

## The factors that move the needle toward or away from consent
Because the analysis is fact-specific, the practical work is knowing which facts push a given AI use toward needing consent and which push it away. None of these factors is dispositive on its own, and a real matter usually presents a mix. The value of laying them out is that it lets a lawyer see, before touching a tool, roughly where a proposed use sits on the spectrum and how much care it calls for.
The table below summarizes the factors drawn from Opinion 512's confidentiality analysis [[1]](#ref-1). It is a working reference, not a scoring system, and it does not replace judgment on a specific matter in a specific jurisdiction. Read it as a way to structure the conversation you should be having with your own counsel, not as a formula that produces an answer by itself.
Factor Pushes toward needing consent Pushes away from needing consent
How the tool learns Tool is self-learning and may train on inputs Enterprise tool with a contractual no-training and zero-retention agreement
What you input Input includes client-identifiable or confidential information Input is de-identified or non-confidential
Tool tier Consumer tier with no confidentiality safeguards Enterprise tier with appropriate confidentiality safeguards
Engagement terms Engagement letter does not address AI use Client already gave informed consent covering this use
Sensitivity Highly sensitive or privileged matter Routine, low-sensitivity task

No single factor decides the question. A use can sit in the left column on one row and the right column on another. The mix is what a lawyer has to weigh.

## A decision walkthrough for a single matter
Rather than reach for a universal rule, it helps to run the same short sequence on each matter before client material reaches a tool. The steps below map to the factors above and keep the confidentiality question separate from the privilege question, so that neither gets skipped. This is a way to make the fact-specific analysis routine, not a substitute for judgment or for your jurisdiction's adopted rules.
Work the sequence in order, and stop to get consent, or to change tools, at the first point where the honest answer says you should. The goal is not to reach a predetermined outcome. It is to make sure the decision is deliberate and defensible, and that you can later explain why you handled a given matter the way you did.

- **Classify the data** Decide whether the input includes information relating to the representation, and how sensitive it is, before any tool touches it.
- **Check the tool** Determine whether the tool is self-learning and whether it carries a contractual no-training and zero-retention commitment with appropriate safeguards [[1]](#ref-1).
- **Check the engagement letter** Ask whether the client has already given informed consent covering this specific kind of AI use, or whether only boilerplate is in place.
- **Decide on consent** If confidential input is going into a self-learning tool without prior informed consent, obtain informed, specific consent before proceeding, per Opinion 512 [[1]](#ref-1).
- **Run the privilege question separately** Ask, as a distinct matter, whether the disclosure could affect privilege, recognizing that this is an unsettled question for courts, not something consent resolves.
- **Record what happened** Keep a record of which tool saw which data, whether it was isolated, and that consent was captured, so you can show your handling rather than merely assert it.
This walkthrough is a structuring aid, not legal advice. Apply it with your own counsel and your jurisdiction's rules on the specific matter in front of you.

## How the engagement letter changes the analysis
One factor deserves its own treatment because it can shift the answer more than any other, which is what the engagement letter already says. Opinion 512 is clear that generic, buried language is not enough to carry an informed-consent obligation, because consent has to be informed and specific to the risk [[1]](#ref-1). A single line stating that the firm "may use technology, including artificial intelligence" does not, on its own, do the work of informing a client about a self-learning tool that could train on their confidential information.
That said, an engagement letter can meaningfully change the analysis when it addresses AI use with enough specificity that the client genuinely understood what they were agreeing to. If a client has been told, in terms they could act on, how the firm uses AI tools, what categories of information those tools may see, and what the safeguards are, then the consent factor moves toward the away column for uses that fall inside what was described. The letter does not become a blanket permission slip, but it can cover a defined scope.
The practical implication is that AI consent is better handled as a considered part of client intake than as a scramble in the middle of a matter. A firm that addresses AI use specifically at engagement, and revisits it when its tools or practices change, is running the confidentiality analysis by design rather than by luck. For how the confidentiality duty plays out across a representation, see [our overview of client confidentiality and AI](https://rankshieldlegal.com/client-confidentiality-ai/).
Boilerplate does not satisfy Opinion 512's informed-consent standard. Specific, informed language in an engagement letter can cover a defined scope of AI use, but it is not a blanket waiver.

## Where state guidance varies
ABA formal opinions are influential but not binding. They are guidance that states adopt, adapt, or decline, and several state bars have issued their own guidance on lawyers using generative AI. That means the answer to "do I have to tell my client" can differ depending on the jurisdiction whose rules govern your practice, and checking your own state's guidance is not optional.
The Florida Bar has issued an ethics opinion addressing lawyers' use of generative AI, including how AI's effect on billing and costs should be disclosed to clients [[3]](#ref-3). That is a different emphasis from a pure confidentiality-consent framing, and it shows how state guidance can foreground concerns the ABA opinion treats more briefly. In Texas, the State Bar has issued guidance emphasizing human oversight of AI in legal work [[4]](#ref-4). The specifics vary, and this article does not try to catalog every state or assert holdings beyond what these sources say.
The safe posture is to treat the ABA opinion as the baseline framework and then read it together with your jurisdiction's own guidance, which may add requirements around disclosure, billing, or oversight. A national survey of state approaches can help you see where your jurisdiction sits [[5]](#ref-5), but the controlling source is always the rule your licensing authority has actually adopted, interpreted by your own counsel.

- ABA Formal Opinion 512 is influential guidance, not a binding rule that states must follow [[1]](#ref-1).
- Florida's ethics opinion addresses AI's impact on billing and cost disclosure to clients [[3]](#ref-3).
- Texas guidance emphasizes human oversight of AI in legal work [[4]](#ref-4).
- Check your own jurisdiction's adopted rules and opinions, because requirements differ by state.

## What "informed" consent actually requires you to explain
Informed consent means the client understood the risk in plain terms: what the tool is, whether it learns from inputs, what information is involved, and how the firm limits exposure. A record of that conversation is what makes it defensible later.
If a matter lands in the territory where consent is needed, the next question is what a client actually has to be told for that consent to count. Opinion 512 ties consent to competence for a reason: a lawyer cannot obtain informed consent about a tool the lawyer does not understand [[1]](#ref-1). The client needs enough of an explanation to grasp the risk they are being asked to accept, in plain terms, not a technical disclosure they cannot parse.
In practice, that means being able to tell the client, at a level they can act on, what the tool is, whether it is self-learning and could train on their information, what category of their information would be involved, and what the firm is doing to limit the exposure. If the firm is using an enterprise tool with a no-training and zero-retention commitment, saying so is part of informing the client, because it is directly relevant to the risk. The explanation should match the actual use, not a generic description of AI.
This is also where records matter. A consent that was informed and specific is only useful later if the firm can show what the client was told and that they agreed. Keeping a clear record of the consent conversation, tied to the specific use it covered, turns a professional obligation into something the firm can demonstrate rather than merely recall. That record is separate from, and does not resolve, any later privilege question.

## Attesting that the consent step happened and privileged material was isolated
Whatever a firm decides on a given matter, there is a gap between doing the right thing and being able to show it later. A firm can obtain informed consent, choose an enterprise tool, and isolate the most sensitive material, and still, months later, be unable to demonstrate that any of it happened the way it remembers. Consent conversations fade into recollection, and "we isolated that data" becomes an assertion rather than a record.
This is the narrow thing verification tooling can help with, and it is worth being precise about what it does and does not claim. RankShield Legal's approach can attest that the consent step occurred and that privileged or confidential material was isolated, whether by being withheld, redacted, tokenized, or handled by a local model, binding together the interaction, the approved tool, the firm's policy, and the captured consent into a record that can be verified independently later. That attests to architecture and to consent. It does not attest to a privilege outcome.
The honest boundary is the same one this whole article has held. An attestation can show that isolation functioned as designed and that consent was captured. It cannot decide whether privilege was waived, because that is a legal determination a court makes, not a control any vendor can enforce. What it changes is not the law. It changes whether a firm can show what it did, at the moment the question is asked. The mechanics of that isolation are covered in [our note on privilege isolation](https://rankshieldlegal.com/privilege-isolation/).
Attestation evidences that consent was captured and that material was isolated. It does not prove privilege was preserved, which remains a court's determination. Do not trust any claim that a tool guarantees privilege.

## Factors to work through with your own counsel
None of this has to be reinvented matter by matter. The same handful of questions comes up each time, and a firm that answers them before client material reaches a tool is running the confidentiality analysis by habit rather than by luck. These questions map to the factors laid out above, and they are meant to structure a conversation with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction, not to substitute for one.
This article is general information from a founder who builds verification tools for law firms, not legal advice, and not an opinion on any specific matter. ABA opinions are non-binding guidance that states adopt differently, the confidentiality duty is distinct from privilege, and privilege waiver is decided case by case. Use the questions below as a starting point, then take the actual decision to your own counsel and your jurisdiction's rules.

- Does the input include information relating to the representation, and how sensitive is it [[1]](#ref-1)?
- Is the tool self-learning, or does it carry a contractual no-training and zero-retention commitment [[1]](#ref-1)?
- Has the client given informed, specific consent covering this use, or only signed boilerplate [[1]](#ref-1)?
- Does your jurisdiction's own guidance add requirements around disclosure, billing, or oversight [[3]](#ref-3) [[4]](#ref-4)?
- Have you run the privilege question as a separate analysis, recognizing it is unsettled and decided by courts?
- Can the firm later show, not just assert, that consent was captured and sensitive material was isolated?
This is informational, not legal advice. Because this is an ethics question that varies by jurisdiction and by facts, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before relying on any AI workflow.

Test yourself
## AI disclosure and consent self-check
A few questions on when Opinion 512 points toward client consent for AI use.

- 1 Does ABA Formal Opinion 512 set a bright-line rule to always disclose AI use? Yes, always disclose No, it says a lawyer may need consent and the analysis is fact-specific No, disclosure is never required **Answer:** No, it says a lawyer may need consent and the analysis is fact-specific Opinion 512 says a lawyer may need the client's informed consent before inputting information into a self-learning tool; the word "may" leaves the determination fact-specific.
- 2 Does an engagement letter line saying the firm "may use technology, including artificial intelligence" satisfy informed consent? Yes, that boilerplate is enough No, consent must be specific to the risk, not generic boilerplate Only for litigation matters **Answer:** No, consent must be specific to the risk, not generic boilerplate Opinion 512 is clear that boilerplate buried in an engagement letter does not carry an informed-consent obligation; consent has to be specific to the risk.
- 3 Which duty does the consent question in Opinion 512 fall under, and how does it relate to privilege? Privilege, which consent preserves Confidentiality under Rule 1.6, which is separate from privilege that courts decide They are the same duty **Answer:** Confidentiality under Rule 1.6, which is separate from privilege that courts decide The consent question sits inside the confidentiality duty under Rule 1.6; whether AI use waives evidentiary privilege is a separate, unsettled question for courts.
- 4 What should an "informed" consent about AI actually explain to the client? Only that AI was used at all What the tool is, whether it learns from inputs, what information is involved, and how the firm limits exposure The vendor's full technical architecture **Answer:** What the tool is, whether it learns from inputs, what information is involved, and how the firm limits exposure In plain terms the client can act on: what the tool is, whether it is self-learning, what category of information is involved, and what the firm does to limit the exposure.
Honest self-check. There is no sign-up, and nothing is stored.

Questions answered
## Straight answers to the common questions
The questions readers ask about this topic, answered directly. **No forms, no sales pitch.**

JAMIE KLONCZ · SEO AGENCY NAPLES ************** ONLINE
Pick a question on the left, or search above. You will get the direct answer, the way an answer engine would give it.

← PREV NEXT → [REQUEST ACCESS →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/contact/)

- **Do I always have to tell my client I used AI?** No, there is no bright-line rule that a lawyer must disclose every use of AI. ABA Formal Opinion 512 says that before inputting information relating to the representation into a self-learning generative AI tool, a lawyer may need the client's informed consent [1]. The word "may" matters, because the opinion is guidance and the analysis is fact-specific. Whether consent is needed turns on what the tool does with inputs, whether those inputs include confidential client information, the tool's safeguards, and what your engagement letter already addresses. A lawyer summarizing public material in a tool that does not train on inputs is in a different position from one pasting confidential client facts into a consumer chatbot. Run the analysis on the facts of the matter, and consult your jurisdiction's rules, because states adopt this guidance differently.
- **Is telling my client about AI a confidentiality issue or a privilege issue?** It is primarily a confidentiality issue, and that is different from privilege. ABA Formal Opinion 512 grounds its AI consent guidance in the ethical duty of confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6, which covers all information relating to a representation, whether or not anything is ever litigated [1][2]. Evidentiary privilege is a separate protection that can keep certain lawyer-client communications out of a proceeding and that a court can find waived by disclosure to a third party. Whether AI use affects privilege is an unsettled legal question that courts decide case by case, and consent under Opinion 512 does not resolve it. Keep the two apart. Obtaining consent addresses the ethical duty. It does not guarantee that privilege is preserved, which remains the court's determination.
- **Does an engagement letter that mentions AI count as consent?** It depends on how specific it is. Opinion 512 is clear that boilerplate is not enough, because informed consent has to be specific to the risk rather than buried in generic engagement language [1]. A single line saying the firm "may use technology including artificial intelligence" generally does not inform a client about a self-learning tool that could train on their confidential information. An engagement letter can, however, cover a defined scope of AI use if it explains, in terms the client could act on, how the firm uses AI, what information those tools may see, and what safeguards are in place. Even then it is not a blanket waiver for any future use. Handling AI consent at intake, and revisiting it when tools change, is a more defensible approach than relying on generic language.
- **What has to be in an "informed" consent about AI?** Enough for the client to understand the risk they are accepting, in plain terms. Because Opinion 512 ties consent to competence, a lawyer has to understand the tool well enough to explain it [1]. In practice, that means telling the client what the tool is, whether it is self-learning and could train on their information, what category of their information would be involved, and what the firm is doing to limit exposure. If the firm uses an enterprise tool with a no-training and zero-retention commitment, that is relevant to the risk and worth stating. The explanation should match the actual use rather than describe AI generically. Keeping a record of the consent conversation, tied to the specific use it covered, is what lets a firm later show the consent was informed rather than merely assert it.
- **Does the answer change depending on my state?** Yes. ABA formal opinions are influential guidance, not binding rules, and states adopt, adapt, or decline them, so requirements differ by jurisdiction. Several state bars have issued their own guidance on generative AI. The Florida Bar has addressed AI's impact on how billing and costs are disclosed to clients [3], and Texas guidance emphasizes human oversight of AI in legal work [4]. Those different emphases mean the practical obligations around telling a client about AI can vary from one state to the next. Treat Opinion 512 as a baseline framework, then read it together with your own jurisdiction's adopted rules and opinions. A national survey can help you locate where your state sits [5], but the controlling source is always the rule your licensing authority has actually adopted, interpreted by your own counsel.
- **Can a tool prove I got consent and protected privileged material?** A tool can evidence the consent step and the isolation of sensitive material, but it cannot prove privilege was preserved. RankShield Legal's approach can attest that consent was captured and that privileged or confidential material was isolated, whether withheld, redacted, tokenized, or handled by a local model, binding the interaction, the approved tool, the firm's policy, and the consent into an independently verifiable record. That attests to architecture and consent, not to a legal outcome. Whether privilege was waived is a determination a court makes on the facts, and no vendor can control it. Be cautious of any claim that a tool guarantees privilege, because that describes something a court decides. What honest tooling changes is whether a firm can show what it actually did, at the moment the question is asked, rather than rely on recollection.

## References

- ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. Formal Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. July 29, 2024. [https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/07/aba-issues-first-ethics-guidance-ai-tools/](https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/07/aba-issues-first-ethics-guidance-ai-tools/)
- American Bar Association. Model Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information. 2024. [https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/)
- The Florida Bar. Ethics Opinion 24-1: Lawyers' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence. January 19, 2024. [https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/](https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/)
- State Bar of Texas. Taskforce for Responsible AI in the Law: Interim Report and Guidance on Human Oversight. 2024. [https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Task_Force_for_Responsible_AI_in_the_Law](https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Task_Force_for_Responsible_AI_in_the_Law)
- Justia. State-by-State Survey of Ethics Guidance on Generative AI in Legal Practice. 2024. [https://www.justia.com/lawyers/legal-ethics/](https://www.justia.com/lawyers/legal-ethics/)

Written by
## [Jamie Kloncz](https://rankshieldlegal.com/about/)
Founder, RankShield
Jamie Kloncz is the founder of RankShield, the verifiable AI and quantum security platform behind RankShield Legal. An engineer by training, he built RankShield after his own devices and business were attacked, including an AI voice-cloning scam that targeted his family, on one conviction: unverifiable security is the real danger, so every consequential action should leave a receipt anyone can independently check.
[More about Jamie →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/about/)

Try it · Free
## Check a citation against live case-law
Paste a citation from an AI-drafted brief and see whether the case actually exists, resolved against live case-law. Free, no sign-up. Then request early access to certify a full filing.
[Try the citation checker](https://rankshieldlegal.com/ai-legal-citation-checker/)

Keep reading
## Related guides
[AI Confidentiality Is ChatGPT Confidential for Lawyers? What ABA Opinion 512 Requires Read guide →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/is-chatgpt-confidential-for-lawyers/)[AI Confidentiality Document Review With AI Without Waiving Privilege Read guide →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/document-review-ai-privilege/)[AI Confidentiality How to Prove Privileged Data Never Reached a Third-Party AI Model Read guide →](https://rankshieldlegal.com/blog/prove-privileged-data-never-reached-ai/)