Artificial intelligence has become a routine part of modern legal practice, just as legal databases, electronic discovery, and email are. Used responsibly, AI helps lawyers research faster, draft cleaner first passes, review documents more thoroughly, and devote more attention to the judgment-intensive parts of representation. Used carelessly, it produces fabricated citations, leaks confidential information, and erodes the professional accountability that defines lawyering.

This firm has adopted a deliberate, conservative approach: AI is used as a productivity tool, never as a substitute for attorney judgment, and every AI-assisted output passes through licensed-attorney review before any external use.

Governing Authority

The firm’s AI practices follow guidance from:

Authority	What It Addresses
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024)	Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools — the first national ethics opinion on AI in legal practice. Addresses competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, and fees.
NYSBA Task Force on AI Report (April 2024)	New York State Bar Association comprehensive framework for attorney use of AI, addressing the full spectrum of NY Rules of Professional Conduct implicated by generative AI tools.
NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5 (August 2024)	NYC Bar guidance on generative AI in the practice of law — specific NY-focused application of professional responsibility rules to AI tools.
NY Rules of Professional Conduct	RPC 1.1 (competence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 1.6 (confidentiality), RPC 3.3 (candor to tribunal), RPC 5.1 and 5.3 (supervision), RPC 7.1 (advertising).

The NY framework, unlike California and Florida, does not require client consent before a lawyer uses AI tools in a matter. NY does, however, require that lawyers remain competent in the technology, protect confidentiality, supervise outputs, verify accuracy, and bill fairly. This firm goes further than the NY minimum and discusses AI use openly with clients who have questions or preferences about it.

Where AI Is Used in This Firm’s Practice

AI tools are used as productivity aids in defined, attorney-supervised tasks:

Legal research. Commercially available legal-research platforms with AI-augmented features are used to identify potentially relevant authority. Every cited case, statute, and regulation is independently verified by an attorney through primary sources before it appears in any filing, memorandum, or client communication. The attorney is responsible for the citation regardless of how it was identified.

Document review and summarization. AI tools assist with reviewing large document productions, summarizing lengthy records, and identifying key passages in voluminous materials. The substantive analysis and conclusions remain attorney work.

First-pass drafting. AI may produce a first draft of certain routine documents (correspondence, internal memoranda, structured templates) that an attorney then revises, tailors, and finalizes. The attorney is responsible for the content of any document the firm sends, signs, or files — the AI is a starting point, not the author.

Plain-language explanations. AI may help convert technical legal concepts into plainer language for client communication. The attorney reviews the output for accuracy and appropriateness to the matter before sending.

Internal administrative tasks. Calendar management, scheduling, internal task organization, and similar non-substantive workflow items.

Where AI Is Not Used

Equally important is what AI is not used for at this firm.

Strategic decisions. Case strategy, settlement positions, litigation tactics, negotiation choices, and judgment calls about how to handle a matter are made by the attorney based on facts, law, and the client’s interests — not by AI.

Final attorney work product without verification. No document leaves this firm without attorney review. AI-generated output is treated as a draft to be checked, not a finished product. Citations are verified against primary sources. Factual statements are confirmed. Legal conclusions are independently reasoned through.

Court filings without independent attorney verification. Every citation in every court filing is verified by an attorney before submission. The risk of AI “hallucinations” — fabricated cases that do not exist — is real and well documented (the firm follows the NY State Bar’s guidance and the cautionary case law in this area). The verification step is non-negotiable.

Client-specific legal advice. Legal advice tailored to a client’s specific facts is provided by the attorney based on the attorney’s analysis of the client’s matter. AI is not a substitute for the attorney’s judgment about what advice to give.

Confidential client information in public AI tools. Confidential client information is not entered into general-purpose, public AI tools (the kind anyone can sign up for at no cost) where the inputs may be retained, used for model training, or accessed by the platform operator. Where AI is used on confidential matters, the firm uses tools with appropriate confidentiality protections, vendor agreements, and data-handling terms consistent with NY RPC 1.6.

Communications that pretend to be human-only. The firm does not generate AI-written communications and represent them as personally drafted. Routine correspondence may be AI-assisted; substantive client communications, opinion letters, and personalized advice come from attorney review and judgment.

How Client Confidentiality Is Protected

NY RPC 1.6 imposes a duty of confidentiality that applies to AI tools just as it applies to email, phone calls, and document storage. The firm’s confidentiality protections include:

Vendor selection. AI tools used in connection with client matters are evaluated for their data-handling terms, retention practices, training-data use, and security posture. Tools that retain client inputs for general model training, or that lack adequate confidentiality protections, are not used for confidential client work.

Data minimization. When AI is used, only the information necessary to the task is provided. Client identifying details are anonymized or generalized where they are not essential to the work being done.

Attorney supervision. Under NY RPC 5.3, an attorney is responsible for ensuring that non-lawyer assistance — including AI tools — is used in a manner consistent with the lawyer’s professional obligations. AI use at this firm is supervised by Attorney Cook directly.

No public tools for sensitive matters. Free, public-facing AI tools (the kind that any consumer can sign up for) are not used to process confidential client material.

The Verification Standard

The single most important rule in this firm’s AI practice is straightforward: every AI-assisted output is reviewed and verified by a licensed attorney before any external use.

This means:

• Every case citation is confirmed against the primary source. AI tools have demonstrably produced fabricated citations that look real but do not exist. The firm does not rely on AI-cited authority without independent verification.
• Every factual assertion in an AI-assisted draft is confirmed against the underlying record. Drafts are working documents, not finished products.
• Every legal conclusion is independently reasoned through by the attorney. AI may help frame an analysis; it does not replace one.
• The attorney is responsible for the content of every document signed, sent, or filed by the firm. The attorney’s signature certifies the work, regardless of how any first draft was produced.

This is not an aspirational standard — it is the operating standard. NY courts have sanctioned attorneys whose filings contained AI-generated fabricated citations, in some cases imposing thousands of dollars in penalties and triggering disciplinary review. Beyond the rules, fabricated authority in a client’s case can affect the outcome of the matter. The verification step exists precisely to prevent this.

AI and Fees

NY RPC 1.5 requires that fees be reasonable. ABA Formal Opinion 512 specifically addresses how attorneys should handle billing on AI-assisted work.

The firm’s billing practices on AI-assisted matters follow these principles:

Bill for time actually invested. If a task takes one hour with AI assistance instead of three hours without, the client is billed for one hour, not three. The efficiency benefit belongs to the client.

Bill for attorney judgment, not for AI runtime. The value the firm provides is legal judgment, supervision, verification, and accountability. Time spent reviewing, verifying, and tailoring AI output is attorney work and is billable as such. Time spent waiting for an AI tool to generate output is not billed as attorney time.

No surcharge for AI tools. The firm does not separately charge clients for use of general-purpose AI tools that are part of overhead, the same way it does not bill separately for word processing software or email. Specialized AI platforms with material per-matter costs (specific litigation-support platforms, for example) are handled like any other case-specific cost and disclosed to the client when used.

Disclosure on request. If a client wants to understand specifically how AI was used on their matter or how it affected the bill, the firm will discuss it openly.

Why This Firm Has Thought About AI Carefully

Attorney Ronald S. Cook is the author of Mastering Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice, available on Amazon, addressing AI tools in legal work, professional responsibility implications, and the regulatory framework governing attorney use of AI. The firm provides commentary on AI legal issues to investigative reporters and journalists, including background commentary contributed to New York Magazine on AI detection tools and false-positive accusations.

The firm’s other AI-related practice areas include:

• AI legal services overview — client representation in AI-related legal matters
• AI adoption legal strategy — advisory work for businesses adopting AI
• AI academic misconduct defense — representation of students and others facing AI-use accusations
• AI music streaming fraud — copyright and IP issues in AI-generated content

Frequently Asked Questions

Will AI be used in my case?

Possibly — for routine, attorney-supervised tasks like research, document review, summarization, and first-pass drafting. The attorney always reviews and verifies any AI-assisted output before any external use. If you have specific concerns about AI use in your matter, raise them with the firm at engagement and we will address them.

Is my information safe?

Confidentiality protections under NY RPC 1.6 apply to all firm work, including AI-assisted work. The firm does not enter confidential client information into public AI tools that retain inputs for model training. AI tools used on client matters are evaluated for confidentiality and data-handling terms before use.

Are you replacing attorney work with AI?

No. AI accelerates routine tasks like research and drafting, but every substantive judgment — what to argue, how to advise, what strategy to pursue, what to file — is made by the attorney. AI is a productivity tool, not a substitute for legal judgment.

Does AI use lower my legal fees?

In some matters, yes — the firm bills for time actually invested, so efficiency gains from AI assistance flow through to the client’s bill. In other matters, the time savings are modest and the bill is largely determined by the substantive work involved. The firm bills for attorney judgment, not for AI runtime.

What about hallucinated citations? I’ve read about lawyers being sanctioned for that.

The risk is real. AI tools can produce case citations that look authentic but do not exist. NY courts (and federal courts in NY) have sanctioned attorneys whose filings contained fabricated authority. The firm’s verification standard exists specifically to prevent this: every citation in every filing is confirmed against the primary source by the attorney before submission. AI-cited authority is treated as a starting point to verify, never as authority to rely on without checking.

Does NY require my consent for you to use AI?

No. Unlike some other states, the NY framework does not require client consent before a lawyer uses AI tools. NY does require that lawyers remain competent in the technology, protect confidentiality, supervise outputs, verify accuracy, and bill fairly — all of which the firm does. The firm welcomes conversations with clients who have questions or preferences about AI use in their matter.

Can I see specifically how AI was used on my matter?

Yes. If you want to understand how AI was used on your specific matter or how it affected the bill, ask the firm and we will discuss it. The firm is comfortable being transparent about its practices.

What if AI gets something wrong on my matter?

The attorney is responsible for the work, regardless of how any first draft was produced. The verification standard exists to catch errors before they affect the matter. If something does go wrong, the firm’s responsibility is the same as it would be for any other error — the AI does not transfer accountability away from the attorney.

Contact Us

Call toll-free: (888) 275-2620. Available 24/7.

Our law firm has over 3,000 client testimonials across Google, BBB, Trustpilot, and other platforms. View verified client reviews.

Contact the law firm

Last reviewed by Attorney Ronald S. Cook — May 2026

This page is for informational and transparency purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal and ethical framework governing attorney use of AI continues to evolve through ABA, NYSBA, NYC Bar, and court guidance; this page reflects the firm’s current practices and is updated as the framework develops. The firm complies with the NY Rules of Professional Conduct and the applicable bar guidance referenced above. Prior results do not guarantee future results.