The Pennsylvania Bar Association issued PBA Formal Opinion 2024-100 in September 2024, addressing AI use in legal practice with a focus on confidentiality and disclosure obligations. Pennsylvania's opinion is notable for its emphasis on understanding AI data processing before use — not just checking a compliance box, but genuinely comprehending how the tool handles client information.
The opinion supports court filing disclosure requirements and establishes confidentiality as the primary concern. Billing guidance remains pending, with the bar acknowledging that Rule 1.5 applies but deferring detailed billing methodology to future guidance. For Pennsylvania's approximately 70,000 active attorneys, this opinion sets the baseline while leaving room for evolution.
What the Bar Says
PBA Formal Opinion 2024-100 (September 2024) requires attorneys to understand how AI tools process data before using them with client information. This goes beyond simply reading a privacy policy — the opinion envisions attorneys developing genuine familiarity with AI tool architecture, data flows, and storage practices.
The opinion applies Rule 1.1 (competence) to require not just proficiency with AI outputs but understanding of the technology itself. Attorneys must be able to explain to clients, courts, and disciplinary authorities how their AI tools work, where data goes, and what safeguards exist. This is a higher bar than many states have set.
Billing Implications
Billing guidance is explicitly pending in Pennsylvania. The opinion acknowledges that Rule 1.5 (reasonable fees) applies to AI-assisted work but does not establish specific billing rules. The bar has indicated that detailed billing methodology may be addressed in future guidance.
In the interim, Pennsylvania attorneys should follow the emerging national consensus: fees should reflect actual attorney effort, AI tool costs should be disclosed when passed to clients, and pre-AI time estimates should not be used for AI-accelerated work. States like Oregon and North Carolina provide useful billing frameworks while Pennsylvania's guidance remains incomplete.
Confidentiality Rules
Confidentiality is the centerpiece of Pennsylvania's opinion. Attorneys must understand how AI tools process data before using them with any client information. This includes knowing whether data is stored, for how long, whether it is used for model training, who has access, and how it is secured.
The opinion does not ban specific AI tools by name but creates a functional test: if you cannot explain how the tool handles client data, you should not use it for client work. This effectively excludes consumer-grade chatbots for most client-related tasks and pushes firms toward enterprise AI solutions with transparent data practices.
What's Still Unclear
The most significant gap is billing guidance. Pennsylvania acknowledged the issue but deferred it, leaving firms without a clear framework for pricing AI-assisted work. This creates uncertainty for both firms and clients during fee negotiations.
The opinion also does not address AI in specific practice areas — litigation versus transactional work, criminal defense versus corporate compliance. The confidentiality stakes vary significantly across these contexts. Additionally, the opinion does not establish a vendor vetting checklist or certification standard, leaving the "understand how it processes data" requirement subjective.
The Bottom Line: Pennsylvania requires attorneys to genuinely understand AI data processing before use — not just check a box — and supports court disclosure requirements, with specific billing guidance still pending.
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.