FEATURE ARTICLE: When Clients Want to DIY With AI
Author: Professor Michael H. Hoeflich, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Legal Editor: Carrie E. Parker
This article is featured in Volume 7, Number 1 of the Legal Ethics and Malpractice Reporter, published January 30, 2025.
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.
First, a lawyer cannot ethically use such results and documents without a thorough review. The Rules of Professional Conduct require that lawyers be thorough and knowledgeable about digital issues. Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 requires:
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
Comment 8 to KRPC 1.1 requires a lawyer:
To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.
A lawyer in 2026 must understand that generative AI often produces inaccurate results including “hallucinations,” i.e. made-up citations. The only way to ensure that hallucinated citations are not included in final products filed in a court or incorporated into documents is to specially research every AI-produced document.
Second, AI often misses relevant citations. This may occur because the questions asked (i.e., the prompts entered into the program) are not optimal. This can occur when anyone asks generative AI to respond to a legal question, but especially when that person lacks legal expertise. Even with the best prompts, AI-generated responses will not always produce the most relevant law.
Of course, if a client has used AI and wants to avoid lawyer fees by insisting that the lawyer use the documents produced by the AI, then there is going to be a problem. The lawyer will feel—rightly—an ethical obligation to take measures to ensure the accuracy of the documents, which will involve additional billed time, because a lawyer may not waive her professional responsibility obligations to be competent under Rule 1.1.
If the client insists that the lawyer use them, KRPC 1.2(a) leaves the ultimate decision to the lawyer. It states:
A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the lawful objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means which the lawyer shall choose to pursue. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
Since the decision about whether to use AI-generated documents without thorough review is a decision about the “means” for accomplishing the client’s objective, the lawyer must discuss the issues involved with the client but is not ethically required to follow the client’s wishes. The lawyer should inform that client that she has a right to terminate the representation for any reason and may do so in this case.
The following two hypotheticals illustrate the problem of client-supplied, AI-generated documents:
Hypothetical 1:
A bank employs a law firm to do collection work and—if necessary—litigation against credit card holders in default. The bank’s vice president believes that he can reduce legal costs by doing much of the document work in-house by using generative AI. The firm is informed that it must use the bank’s AI-produced documents.
Hypothetical 2:
A lawyer in a small town represents credit card debtors sued by credit card/debt collection companies. He is approached by a potential client who is in default on a credit card. The potential client insists that he will prepare all of the documents using ChatGPT in order to save money and that his attorney must use those documents.
What are the lawyer’s obligations in each of the two hypotheticals? Not only does the lawyer not have to follow the client’s wishes, but the lawyer is very likely ethically prohibited from doing so.
Reconsider the Rules of Professional Conduct mentioned above:
KRPC 1.1. Competence
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
(emphasis added).
KRPC 1.2. Scope of Representation
(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the lawful objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means which the lawyer shall choose to pursue. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
(b) A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.
(c) A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent in writing.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
(e) When a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by the rules of professional conduct or other law, the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding the relevant limitations on the lawyer’s conduct.
(emphasis added).
Appendix: SO 26-01
This court order was issued on January 28, 2026, too late for inclusion in the lead article. We will analyze it in the next issue of LEMR.
USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (“AI”) ) IN PREPARING COURT FILINGS
Courts are seeing an increasing number of filings that include false statements of fact or law, including citations to fabricated or incorrect legal authority. It is possible that such filings have been generated by using artificial intelligence (“AI”). Although AI can assist the legal system in advancing the goal of furthering the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of cases, see FED. R. CIV. P. 1, AI tools can produce false statements of fact or law, including citations to fabricated or incorrect legal authority. This can waste judicial and party resources and undermine the integrity of the proceedings.
The court therefore reminds and cautions all lawyers and parties, including pro se litigants, that they may not make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to the Court or fail to correct a false or misleading statement of material fact or law previously made to the Court. Litigants are responsible for the content of their own filings and for complying with all applicable procedural rules and duties of candor even when they use AI to generate all or portions of court filings. Litigants are therefore responsible for reviewing and verifying the accuracy of all content filed with this court that was drafted or assisted by an AI tool. This includes citations to legal authority, quotations, paraphrased assertions, legal analysis, factual and procedural backgrounds, and the like.
If the court has reason to believe that a litigant has not reviewed and verified the accuracy of the content in any court filing, the court may impose a range of sanctions. First and foremost, the court may sua sponte strike any filing that appears to violate the standards mentioned above— with or without prejudice to refiling. Upon notice, the court may also impose more significant sanctions depending on the facts and circumstances of particular violations, such as imposing monetary sanctions, referring counsel to disciplinary authorities, disqualifying counsel, imposing filing restrictions, or dismissing a party’s case
The court also has broad discretion to require a party in any case to include a sworn statement in all filings disclosing the extent to which AI was used to generate the filing, naming the AI tool used, identifying which portion of the filing includes AI-generated content, and/or certifying that the filer personally reviewed and verified the accuracy of each legal authority cited therein.
This order will remain in effect until further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of January, 2026.
s/ John W. Broomes
_________________
John W. Broomes
Chief United\ States District Judge
READ THE FULL ISSUE 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 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.
