MIT has come up with its own set of proposed AI principles for use of AI by lawyers, yes, a set of principles just to guide a lawyers’ use of Ai. If you are a lawyer, suggest you check them out. This is an early version, which they number as version 0.2, dated June 2, 2023, of seven draft principles to attempt to establish a lawyer’s duties when using AI for legal work. Of course, this is actually something engineered (codified into governing ethical rules) by State Bar Associations, and is typically written about by law schools and the ABA, but still MIT’s attention to this is welcome.

Here are the proposed Seven Principles that the task force proposes to govern a lawyer’s duties when using AI for legal work:

Adhere to the following principles: 1. Duty of Confidentiality to the client in all usage of AI applications; 2. Duty of Fiduciary Care to the client in all usage of AI applications; 3. Duty of Client Notice and Consent* to the client in all usage of AI applications;  4. Duty of Competence in the usage and understanding of AI applications; 5. Duty of Fiduciary Loyalty to the client in all usage of AI applications; 6. Duty of Regulatory Compliance and respect for the rights of third parties, applicable to the usage of AI applications in your jurisdiction(s); 7. Duty of Accountability and Supervision to maintain human oversight over all usage and outputs of AI applications;  *Consent may not always be required – refer to existing best practices for guidance.  We also seek feedback on whether or when consent may be advisable or required.

Note that the TaskForce also makes the following comment:

The Task Force is publicly releasing this early version of draft principles in an open and iterative spirit, not because we believe they are complete or perfect, but in order to engage a broader set of views and expertise in order to improve the end result. 

No one probably thinks this is complete, but it is a good start. They invite comments, so in that spirit, I suggest the committee consider a rewrite of principle five. A lawyer has a fiduciary duty to a client, but also a duty to the court in any litigation applications. Plus, there is more to fiduciary duty than just loyalty, and that is anyway a charged and somewhat vague word. So they might want to consider rewriting that part of five too.

Still, aside from my immediate reaction to principle five, I congratulate the MIT Task Force for their suggestions. My only other comment is to include more actual practicing lawyers in the Task Force. Further, they should include discussion with actual bar associations and start coordinating with the ABA, which is the organization that typically proposes ethics rules for state bar association consideration.

Again, suggest you go here to read their entire proposal and explanation of the Task Force work.