EDITED BY:
Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Carrie E. Parker, Legal Editor
Luzianne Jones, Design & Publishing Editor
PUBLISHED BY: Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC
PUBLICATION DATE: January 30, 2026
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 1
FEATURE ARTICLE: When Clients Want to DIY With AI
A great deal of discussion has been devoted to lawyer use of generative AI in recent years. Far less discussion has addressed the issue of clients who insist that their lawyers use materials the client produced using generative AI.
Surveys show that an increasing number of clients are using AI in a number of ways. Many clients use AI to answer their legal questions. A 2025 survey of clients show that 14% have used AI and 43% would if the necessity arose. Many of these clients who use AI are using publicly available AI platforms that often produce inaccurate results. Further, it is the rare client who is an expert at generating AI prompts to produce optimal results. Still, many of these clients, seeking to save money of legal fees will insist that their lawyers use the documents and research results that they have produced. This presents several problems for the lawyer with such a client.
. . .
NEW AUTHORITY: ABA Formal Opinion 520
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility recently released Formal Opinion 520 relating to Rule 1.16(d) and what ethical obligations a lawyer has when terminating representation.
Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(d), which is substantially similar to Model Rule 1.16(d), states:
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law.
Comment 9, which is identical under KRPC 1.16 and MRPC 1.16, states:
Even if the lawyer has been unfairly discharged by the client, a lawyer must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences to the client. The lawyer may retain papers as security for a fee only to the extent permitted by law.
KRPC 1.16(d) and comments do not give specifics about a lawyer’s practical obligations on withdrawal. Formal Opinion 520 fills in some of these gaps.
The question considered by the Opinion is whether the lawyer is obliged to respond to a request for information that is not memorialized in file materials, including information explaining or elaborating on the materials contained in a previously surrendered file. The Opinion concludes that:
at times, reasonably practicable steps required by Rule 1.16(d) include complying with a request by a former client or by a former client’s successor counsel for certain information that is not already memorialized in the client’s file. This is a limited duty, however. In many circumstances, prompt compliance with a former client’s request for the client’s file will provide all the material information available because the file is well maintained and complete in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction.
In essence, the lawyer’s obligations to do what the ex-client wishes are not unlimited. But they very much depend on the circumstances of the representation (e.g., trial counsel may be obliged to provide unrecorded information to appellate counsel), the necessity of the information to the client’s continuing legal interests, and whether the information is available from other sources.
Virtually every lawyer will face the question of how to ethically behave in the case of a withdrawal from representation, especially when they have been terminated by the client and are not feeling positive toward their ex-client. Opinion 520 is an extremely important guide for lawyers and one that every lawyer must read carefully.
ETHICS & MALPRACTICE RESEARCH TIP: New Article on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Michael Ariens, Legal Representation and Public Criticism, 16 St. Mary’s J. Legal Mal. & Ethics 149 (2025)
Professor Michael Ariens is one of the most thoughtful legal ethicists in the United States. In St. Mary’s Journal of Legal Malpractice and Ethics, he reviews W. Bradley Wendel’s book, Canceling Lawyers: Case Studies of Accountability, Toleration, and Regret.
Wendel is another well-known legal ethicist. In his book, Wendel argues that lawyers can be held accountable for their professional choices—a view that runs contrary to the traditional view that lawyers should be immune from such criticism.
Both the article and the book explore legal ethics, the rule of law, and societal expectations. Both are worth reading.
A BLAST FROM THE PAST: What did Shakespeare Mean?
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
-William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Pt. 2.
Most people quote this line as a way of critiquing lawyers and the legal profession. However, many others view this as a positive statement about lawyers—because it is part of the discussion between two rebels who want to overthrow the rule of law. For example, in Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, Justice John Paul Stevens explained: “a careful reading of that text will reveal, Shakespeare insightfully realized that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government.” 473 U.S. 305, 371, 105 S. Ct. 3180, 3215, 87 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1985).
In a more recent discussion regarding the proper interpretation of the line, Literary Hub’s Olivia Rutgliano concludes:
“Let’s kill all the lawyers” is a complicated phrase that (somehow always) refers to the importance of maintaining a fair rule of law that protects the people. Whether lawyers symbolize evil or good is almost irrelevant; the most important thing about this quote is the upholding of a fair and just law system, itself.
— What did Shakespeare mean when he wrote “let’s kill all the lawyers?” (Jan. 25, 2023), available online at https://lithub.com/what-did-shakespeare-mean-when-he-wrote-lets-kill-all-the-lawyers/.
READ & DOWNLOAD FULL-TEXT PDF OF LEMR Vol. 7, No. 1
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 26 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.
