The Ohio State Bar Association issued Informal Advisory Opinion 2024-01 in June 2024, providing initial guidance on AI use in legal practice. As an informal opinion, it carries less weight than a formal ethics ruling — but it signals where Ohio's bar leadership sees the issues and where formal guidance may follow.
Ohio's approach is measured. The opinion applies existing ethics principles to AI without creating new obligations. It emphasizes reasonable fees, reasonable precautions with client data, and transparency — but stops short of mandating disclosure or prescribing specific technical safeguards. For Ohio attorneys, this means the floor is set but the ceiling remains undefined.
What the Bar Says
Informal Advisory Opinion 2024-01 (June 2024) addresses AI through the lens of existing Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion confirms that attorneys who use AI must maintain competence under Rule 1.1, which includes understanding the capabilities and limitations of the AI tools they employ.
The opinion treats AI as analogous to other technology tools — legal research databases, document automation, e-discovery platforms. The key principle: the attorney remains responsible for all work product. AI-generated content must be reviewed, verified, and supervised as if produced by a non-lawyer assistant.
Billing Implications
The opinion applies general reasonable fee principles to AI-assisted work under Rule 1.5. It does not establish specific billing rules for AI but reaffirms that all fees must be reasonable in light of the work performed and the results achieved.
Ohio has not drawn the explicit line that states like North Carolina have — distinguishing AI overhead costs from attorney time. But the reasonable fee principle implies that billing 5 hours for work AI completed in 30 minutes would face scrutiny. Firms should document their AI-assisted workflows to justify billing in case of client challenges.
Confidentiality Rules
The opinion requires attorneys to take reasonable precautions with client data in AI tools, consistent with Rule 1.6. It does not specify what "reasonable" means in the AI context — no vendor vetting checklist, no prohibition on consumer AI tools, no data processing requirements.
This leaves Ohio attorneys to determine what constitutes reasonable precautions on their own. At minimum, this means understanding how an AI tool processes and stores data before inputting client information. Firms looking for a practical framework should reference the more detailed guidance from California or New York.
What's Still Unclear
As an informal opinion, this guidance is advisory — not binding on the Ohio disciplinary system. A formal opinion would carry significantly more weight. The bar has not indicated whether a formal opinion is forthcoming.
Key gaps remain: no disclosure requirements (to clients or courts), no specific billing methodology for AI-assisted work, no guidance on AI-generated legal research verification, and no framework for evaluating AI vendor compliance. Ohio attorneys operating in federal courts within the Sixth Circuit should also check for court-specific AI disclosure standing orders.
The Bottom Line: Ohio's informal opinion applies general ethics rules to AI without creating new obligations — reasonable fees, reasonable precautions, and attorney responsibility for all AI-generated work product.
AI-Assisted Research. This piece was researched and written with AI assistance, reviewed and edited by Manu Ayala. For deeper takes and the perspective behind the research, follow me on LinkedIn or email me directly.