The information provided on this page is for general educational purposes only. It is not legal advice, ethical advice, or a substitute for professional judgment. Ethical obligations vary based on the specific facts, tools, client relationships, and practice settings involved.
Arizona attorneys have an independent duty under the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct to conduct a complete, individualized analysis of their own circumstances and apply the rules—including ER 1.1, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, and ER 1.6—to their particular law practice.
This resource summarizes national guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512, and selected state opinions where Arizona has not yet issued specific authority. These materials are informational only and should not be relied upon as definitive or exhaustive.
For more individualized assistance, see Get Help below.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 1: Is disclosure to the client required when using generative AI?
Best‑Practice Answer (Arizona ER 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 5.3 + ABA 512)
Although there is currently no Arizona ethical rule or opinion specifically on point that would require the universal disclosure that AI may be used in some way on a matter, your best practice is to not only disclose that your law firm uses AI, but also get the client’s informed consent regarding that use. Informed consent would include disclosure of what tools will be used, the potential benefits of using that tool for the client’s matter (such as decreased time spent on a task) as well as the risks of using that tool (including the potential for exposure of confidential information, the risks of legal research hallucinations, etc.). AI must be supervised like any non‑lawyer assistant. Disclosure is required if supervision limitations could affect the matter.
See Also:
- Arizona ER 1.1, 1.4, 1.6: https://www.azbar.org/for-legal-professionals/ethics/rules-of-professional-conduct/
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 (2024): https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf
- Florida Opinion 24‑1: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2024/01/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-24-1.pdf
- Texas Opinion 705: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_705.pdf
FAQ 2: Must AI disclosure appear in the written fee/ engagement agreement/ engagement letter?
Best‑Practice Answer (Arizona ER 1.5 + ABA 512)
Although there is currently no Arizona ethical rule or opinion specifically on point that would require disclosure of AI use in the fee agreement/ engagement agreement/ engagement letter, the best practice would be to do so.
- Engagement Letter Disclosure Is Strongly Recommended When:
- confidential information will be entered into AI tools*;
- the firm intends to charge for AI‑related costs;
- AI will be used routinely in the matter;
- the client is sophisticated and expects transparency.
- Other Communication Is Acceptable When:
- AI use is incidental and does not involve client data;
- AI is used only for internal administrative tasks;
- AI use does not affect fees or strategy.
FAQ 3: Has the State Bar of Arizona issued guidance on generative AI?
As of 2026, Arizona has not issued a formal ethics opinion specifically addressing generative AI. However, Practice 2.0 and the Technology Working Group has released a best practices guide for the use of AI: https://azbar.org/bpai
FAQ 4: How may Arizona lawyers bill for AI‑assisted work?
- Billing for Time
Lawyers may bill for:
- actual time spent using or supervising AI;
- reviewing, verifying, correcting, and applying legal judgment to AI output;
- prompt engineering that involves legal skill.
Lawyers may not bill for:
- time AI saved (“phantom billing”);
- time spent learning general AI tools (overhead).
- Billing for AI Subscription Costs
FAQ 5 : Does the Bar provide sample engagement‑letter language for AI disclosure?
Best‑Practice Answer (Arizona + ABA 512)
Practice 2.0 has published a sample clause regarding technology use. The following model clause aligns with ER 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 and ABA 512:
Sample Fee Agreement and Engagement‑Letter Language
Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
Our firm uses advanced technology tools, including artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems, to assist with legal research, drafting, document analysis, and workflow management [edit this section to include the types of AI tools your firm uses]. All AI‑assisted work is supervised by an attorney, and no AI output is used without human review.
Some AI tools may process information you provide. We evaluate each tool’s confidentiality protections, but certain tools may require your informed consent before we input confidential information. We will notify you when such consent is required.
The firm may charge a reasonable cost‑recovery fee for certain AI tools when their use is necessary for your matter. Any such fee will not exceed the firm’s actual cost and will be disclosed in advance.
Optional Confidentiality‑Specific Add‑On
We will not input confidential or sensitive information into any AI system unless (1) the system meets appropriate confidentiality standards, or (2) you provide informed consent.
Optional Billing‑Specific Add‑On
If AI tools reduce the time required to complete certain tasks, we will bill only for the actual time spent and will not bill for time saved through the use of technology.
*Note: Never put confidential client information into free, public AI tools.
FAQ 6 : I don't see my specific situation here. Why hasn't the State Bar of Arizona published an exhaustive list of what I can and can't bill for?
A. The answer to many questions is "It depends". Whether or not you can bill a particular amount or for particular time is a highly fact-specific inquiry that cannot be adequately addressed in a general advisory. You must use your professional judgement, in the context of the entire Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, to decide what works for you.
Examples
- Matter‑Specific AI Cost Recovery (Actual Cost Allocation)
Scenario
A firm uses an AI‑powered contract‑analysis platform that charges per document or per use (e.g., $15 per contract analyzed).
How the firm bills
- The firm pays the vendor’s per‑use fee.
- The exact cost is passed through to the client with no markup.
- The engagement letter discloses that this AI tool may incur direct costs.
- Client consents after consultation
Invoice line item
AI Contract‑Analysis Tool (Actual Cost): $15 Vendor charge for automated clause extraction and risk‑flagging. Attorney reviewed and verified all output.
Why this is compliant
- ER 1.5: fee is reasonable and reflects actual cost.
- ER 1.6: client consent was obtained before confidential data was uploaded.
- ABA 512: direct AI costs may be passed through with disclosure.
- Oregon 2025‑205: per‑use AI fees are recoverable when actual cost is known.
- Mirrors legal‑research cost recovery.
- AI Technology Fee (Flat Monthly or Per‑Matter Charge)
Scenario
A firm uses enterprise AI tools (e.g., Copilot, Lexis+ AI) that are billed to the firm as a flat monthly subscription. The firm cannot calculate a precise per‑client cost but wants to recover part of the expense.
How the firm bills
- The firm adds a modest technology fee to matters that routinely use AI tools.
- The fee is disclosed in the engagement letter and does not exceed actual cost.
- The fee is applied consistently across matters.
Invoice line item
Technology & AI Systems Fee: $35 Cost‑recovery fee supporting secure AI research, drafting, and document‑analysis systems used in this matter.
Why this is compliant
- ER 1.5: fee is reasonable and disclosed.
- ER 1.4: client was informed in advance.
- ABA 512: administrative fees are permissible with disclosure.
- Subscription AI tools are overhead unless a reasonable allocation method is disclosed and agreed to.
Important note
This fee must be reasonable, consistently applied, and not a markup. Costs are never a profit center for law firms.
- Billing for Attorney Time Spent Supervising AI Output
Scenario
AI generates a first‑draft research memo or contract summary. The attorney spends 0.4 hours reviewing, correcting, and applying legal judgment.
How the firm bills
- The attorney bills actual time spent supervising and verifying AI output.
- The firm does not bill for time saved by AI.
- The invoice narrative explains the human work performed.
Invoice line item
Attorney Review of AI‑Generated Draft (0.4 hrs) Reviewed AI‑generated summary, verified citations, corrected inaccuracies, and applied legal analysis.
Why this is compliant
- ER 1.1 & ER 5.3: lawyers must supervise AI like any non‑lawyer assistant.
- ER 1.5: billing reflects actual time spent.
- ABA 512: lawyers may bill for professional judgment applied to AI output.
- Sanctions cases: verification is mandatory and billable.
|
Billing Method |
Allowed? |
Conditions |
|
Actual AI cost pass‑through |
✔ Yes |
Must be actual cost, disclosed, no markup |
|
Flat technology/AI fee |
✔ Yes |
Must be disclosed, reasonable, consistently applied |
|
Attorney time supervising AI |
✔ Yes |
Must reflect actual time; no billing for AI‑saved time |
|
Billing for learning AI tools |
❌ No |
Overhead unless client specifically requires a tool |
|
Billing for AI’s “time” or speed |
❌ No |
AI is not a billable entity |
Get Help
For questions regarding your prospective ethical responsibilities, reach out to the Ethics Hotline or call 602.340.7284
For questions regarding fee agreement/engagement letter language, how to use AI in your own practice to improve productivity and what tools to choose, call Practice 2.0 at 602.340.7332