Other
AI, Confidentiality, and the Stratified Legal Profession
Harvard Journal of Law and Technology (JOLT Digest), 2026
Read the originalRead on October 16, 2026
- What it is
- A law journal digest article that analyzes ABA Formal Opinion 512 on generative AI and client confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6.
- How much weight it carries
- A university law journal commentary that quotes the opinion. The ABA's own opinion text is the primary source; the ABA site blocked automated access when we checked.
Facts taken from this source
- ABA Formal Opinion 512 concludes that informed consent is required before client information is entered into self-learning generative AI tools whose outputs could disclose it.
“For those tools, the opinion concludes, “informed consent is required” before entering client information.” (Discussion of Opinion 512)
Pages that rest on this source
- Speech to Text Privacy: Where Your Voice GoesTopic
- Is Voice to Text Safe? How to Dictate PrivatelyGuide
- Legal Dictation Software for Lawyers and Law FirmsGuide
- Legal Transcription: The Job, Formats and PayGuide
- Is Apple Dictation Private? What Apple KeepsGuide
- Dictation for Lawyers: Privilege and ConfidentialityGuide
- Does using cloud dictation waive attorney-client privilege?Question
- Is legal transcription still in demand?Question
- What does ABA Formal Opinion 512 say about AI tools?Question
- What is legal transcription?Question
- Which legal transcription companies hire transcriptionists?Question