Ethics-Safe AI Use for Law Firms — Course Modules

What "technological competence" actually requires under Rule 1.1 when a generative AI tool is inside the legal workflow — and how the duty has been elaborated by ABA Op. 512 and California State Bar Practical Guidance.

What an AI vendor's terms of service actually mean for privileged client information. The vendor questionnaire that surfaces the Rule 1.6 problem before it's a sanctions order.

Why the lawyers in Mata v. Avianca, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) were sanctioned — and the verification workflow (the Mata Protocol) that would have caught the fabricated citations. The five-category hallucination taxonomy and what each requires.

What partners and managers owe when associates, paralegals, or contract attorneys use AI tools. The Five Artifacts test for firm-level compliance and the policy decisions a managing partner has to make in writing.

How AI use is reshaping the cognitive load of legal practice, the burnout patterns to watch for, and the boundary practices that preserve professional judgment. Satisfies California's Competence Issues / Wellness credit category.

How the major jurisdictions differ on AI ethics guidance — NYSBA Task Force Report 2024, Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, D.C. Bar Opinion 388, and the California State Bar's November 2023 guidance. Non-credited reference module bundled with every enrollment.

The full 6.0-credit course delivered in a single day, live and in person, with Q&A. Open to California attorneys in all practice areas. Booking now via Lemon Squeezy.