FEATURE ARTICLE: Does Generative AI Know Legal Ethics?
Author: Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Legal Editor: Carrie E. Parker
This article is featured in Volume 6, Number 10 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published October 31, 2025.
Over the past year, LEMR has devoted a good bit of attention to working with generative AI without falling afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This month we print a comparison of the answers generated by generally available AI platforms in response to a relatively simple prompt concerning a legal ethics issue. The prompt was developed and tested by Mike Hoeflich and Russ Fischer, CTO of Prima Vista AI, a Kansas-based AI consulting and training company.
The Prompt:
“If you are a licensed attorney in the state of Kansas, practicing in the State of Kansas, and you believe you have committed a breach of the rules of professional conduct in Kansas, are you required to self-report?”
ChatGPT
https://chatgpt.com/share/68dad0b1-4ad4-800d-ba03-eeb43b75e8a1
Result from ChatGPT:
Here is relevant text from the Kansas Supreme Court rules and Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. These are the governing rules as published by the Kansas courts.
Kansas Rule 240, Rule 8.3 — Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer having knowledge of any action, inaction, or conduct which in his or her opinion constitutes misconduct of an attorney under these rules shall inform the appropriate professional authority. (Kansas Judicial Center)
(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. (Kansas Judicial Center)
Thus, the Kansas version of Rule 8.3 uses “any action, inaction, or conduct … constitutes misconduct of an attorney under these rules” (not limited to misconduct by others). (Kansas Judicial Center)
Claude
https://claude.ai/share/b6c1a8d7-d1bc-43c5-baa9-086e22e277e1
Notes: When asked to quote the Kansas rule, Claude gets it wrong by including “another” into the text of the rule then relies on the word “another” to answer the question.
Result from Claude:
In Kansas, there is no explicit requirement for attorneys to self-report their own violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3 governs the reporting of professional misconduct, but it specifically addresses when lawyers must report other lawyers’ misconduct, not their own. Under Rule 8.3(a), a Kansas attorney must report another lawyer’s conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
However, there are important practical considerations:
- Duty of Candor: If you’re involved in disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings, you have duties of candor under other rules (like Rule 3.3 regarding candor to tribunals and Rule 8.1 regarding bar admission and disciplinary matters) that would require truthfulness.
- Rule 8.1: This rule specifically prohibits knowingly making false statements or failing to disclose facts in connection with a disciplinary matter or bar admission application.
- Strategic Considerations: While not legally required to self-report, some attorneys choose to do so proactively, particularly if the violation is likely to be discovered anyway, as voluntary disclosure and cooperation can be viewed favorably in mitigation.
- Corrective Action: Some rules (like Rule 1.4 on communication or Rule 1.15 on safekeeping property) may require you to take corrective action to remedy harm, even if they don’t require self-reporting the violation itself.
If you’re concerned about a potential violation, consulting with an ethics attorney or the Kansas Bar Association’s ethics hotline would be advisable to understand your specific obligations and options.
Supplemental Prompt: Can you quote the specific Kansas rule?
Here is Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3:
Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
(c) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an approved lawyers assistance program.
As you can see, subsection (a) requires reporting of “another lawyer” – not oneself. There is no corresponding provision requiring self-reporting of one’s own misconduct.
The Rule does contain the important exception in subsection (c) that protects confidential client information under Rule 1.6, meaning a lawyer doesn’t have to breach client confidentiality to report another lawyer’s misconduct.
Perplexity
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/if-you-are-a-licensed-attorney-VLYtmJArQdOMQUTscsIU6g#1
Notes: This result states, “A Kansas Supreme Court decision confirmed that Rule 8.3(a) does not impose a self-reporting requirement,” but it does not cite the decision it references.
Result from Perplexity:
Kansas attorneys are generally not required to self-report their own breaches of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Under Kansas Rule 8.3(a), attorneys are required to report professional misconduct of other attorneys if they have knowledge of it, but there is no explicit duty to report their own misconduct. A Kansas Supreme Court decision confirmed that Rule 8.3(a) does not impose a self-reporting requirement; the obligation is to report others’ violations rather than one’s own.
However, attorneys are still subject to investigation and discipline for any misconduct, even if it is not self-reported. Some contexts, such as reporting discipline imposed in another jurisdiction, may create certain reporting duties, but there is no broad self-reporting obligation for the original breach itself.
Notes from the LEMR
Although it did not cite the case “confirm[ing] that Rule 8.3(a) does not impose a self-reporting requirement,” Perplexity is presumably referencing In re Jensen, which states:
Additionally, with regard to Ms. Schultz’ complaint, the Disciplinary Administrator alleged that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.3(a) for failing to self-report his own misconduct and KRPC 8.4(b) for failing to report what he believed to be misconduct by Ms. Schultz in her capacity as a municipal court judge. The Hearing Panel unanimously concludes that the Respondent did not violate KRPC 8.3(a) for failing to report himself. KRPC 8.3(a) requires that an attorney report misconduct when he has ‘knowledge of any action, inaction, or conduct which in his or her opinion constitutes misconduct of an attorney.’ In this case, the Respondent believed, and continues to believe, that he did not engage in misconduct. As a result, no obligation to report flows from KRPC 8.3(a).
286 Kan. 1160, 1165 (2008). However, a careful reader would note that the Court very specifically concluded that KRPC 8.3(a) did not require Jensen to report conduct he genuinely believed did not constitute misconduct.
A prudent attorney would also be well served to consult J. Nick Badgerow, The Beam and the Mote: A Review of the Lawyer’s Duty to Report, J. Kan. B. Ass’n (February 2013), which answers our question with reasoning AI is not capable of performing. It also provides insight into some of the imperfections in the answers provided by the AI platforms consulted in this experiment. For example, by reviewing prior iterations of KRPC 8.3 (which used to specifically require reporting violations by “another lawyer” and reporting matters bearing on “honesty, trustworthiness or fitness”), Badgerow explains how he reached the conclusion that the current version of KRPC 8.3 requires Kansas licensed attorneys to self-report. Id. at 24. He then supports this conclusion by citing Kansas cases finding violations of KRPC 8.3 for failure to self-report. Id (citing In re Cline, 289 Kan. 834, 217 P.3d 455 (2009); In re Patterson, 289 Kan. 131, 209 P.3d 692 (2009); In re McGraw, 289 Kan. 813, 217 P.3d 25 (2009)).
READ THE FULL ISSUE OF LEMR, Vol. 6, No. 10
About Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
Joseph, Hollander & Craft is a mid-size law firm representing criminal defense, civil defense, personal injury, and family law clients throughout Kansas and Missouri. From our offices in Kansas City, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka and Wichita, our team of 25 attorneys covers a lot of ground, both geographically and professionally.
We defend against life-changing criminal prosecutions. We protect children and property in divorce cases. We pursue relief for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one due to the negligence of others. We fight allegations of professional misconduct against medical and legal practitioners, accountants, real estate agents, and others.
When your business, freedom, property, or career is at stake, you want the attorney standing beside you to be skilled, prepared, and relentless — Ready for Anything, come what may. At JHC, we pride ourselves on offering outstanding legal counsel and representation with the personal attention and professionalism our clients deserve. Learn more about our attorneys and their areas of practice, and locate a JHC office near you.
