Utah has been proactive on AI ethics. The Utah State Bar issued Advisory Opinion 24-03 in May 2024, providing targeted guidance on generative AI use in legal practice. The opinion addresses billing, confidentiality, and disclosure — the three pillars most firms need clarity on.
Utah's regulatory sandbox program, which allows non-traditional legal service providers, gives the state a unique perspective on legal technology. The bar's AI guidance reflects this forward-thinking posture: it embraces AI as a legitimate tool while drawing clear ethical boundaries around its use.
What the Bar Says
Utah Bar Advisory Opinion 24-03 (May 2024) applies existing Rules of Professional Conduct to AI use. Rule 1.1 (Competence) requires lawyers to understand AI tools before deploying them — including knowing how the model works, what data it was trained on, and its tendency to hallucinate. Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality) demands evaluation of AI vendor data practices before any client information enters the system. The opinion also invokes Rule 5.3 (Supervision), treating AI output like work from a non-lawyer assistant: the attorney must review, verify, and take responsibility for everything.
Billing Implications
The opinion applies reasonable fee analysis to AI-assisted work. Attorneys must disclose AI cost components to clients. If you're passing through AI subscription costs, the client needs to know. Billing at full attorney rates for work substantially completed by AI raises reasonableness concerns under Rule 1.5. The opinion signals that the efficiency gains from AI should at least partially benefit the client. Firms should consider flat-fee or value-based arrangements for AI-heavy matters.
Confidentiality Rules
Utah requires attorneys to vet AI vendor data practices before use with client information. The opinion notes that informed consent may be required — meaning you may need to tell clients you're using AI and get their approval before inputting their data. This goes further than many states. Attorneys must understand the vendor's data retention policies, whether inputs are used for training, and whether data is shared with third parties. The opinion recommends enterprise-grade tools with contractual confidentiality protections.
What's Still Unclear
The opinion does not specify exactly when informed consent is required versus when general disclosure suffices. The line between AI as a research tool (like Westlaw) and AI as a drafting tool (like ChatGPT) is not clearly drawn for ethics purposes. Utah's regulatory sandbox adds complexity — non-lawyer entities operating under sandbox rules may have different AI obligations. The opinion also doesn't address malpractice insurance implications or whether AI errors constitute grounds for disciplinary action separate from the underlying work product failure.
The Bottom Line: Utah's Advisory Opinion 24-03 provides solid guidance on AI ethics with a notable requirement for potential client informed consent — more demanding than most states.
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.