Here's One Thing I Like About AI - Above the Law

"OK, simmer down. You know that I am not fond of AI, at least so far, but have you ever tried to explain the relevant Rules of Professional Responsibility to a nonlawyer client, which is most, if not all, clients? Have you ever tried to explain even one rule to a client? Do their eyes glaze over? Do they start to twitch? Do they excuse themselves to get another cup of coffee? Can you blame them?"

"Trying to explain any of the rules - and usually there's more than one involved in client representation - is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. That pig squirms and squeals, finally wriggling out of your grasp, running everywhere, anywhere, to avoid explanations of rules that govern us but not them. Consequences of running afoul of the rules are ours, not theirs."

"Try explaining to a client that we have dual responsibilities: we represent clients but we are also officers of the court. A client may well ask who comes first? Me or the court? While normally our stock in trade answer is "it depends," if a client says that he is going to perjure himself, the answer is easy. The lawyer must withdraw. If the client does not understand why, then that may say something about client selection."

Lawyers abide by numerous, complex Rules of Professional Responsibility that clients generally do not understand or care about. Explaining those rules to nonlawyer clients often fails because clients focus on outcomes and fees rather than ethical constraints. The rules impose duties that sometimes conflict, such as representing clients while serving as officers of the court, and can require withdrawal when a client intends to commit perjury. Consequences for violating the rules fall primarily on lawyers. Increasing AI use raises questions about whether current rules remain appropriate and whether the profession needs so many regulations. Conflicts issues further complicate client communication and representation.

Read at Above the Law