AI Disclosure for Lawyers: When to Disclose, What to Say, and How to Stay Compliant

A client who learns you used AI on their matter after the fact may feel blindsided—even if you did nothing wrong. That’s why AI disclosure matters: even when it’s not required, it helps manage expectations and preserve trust.

With 98% of legal professionals now using AI in their firms (according to Clio’s 2026 Legal Insights Report), the question isn’t whether to use these tools but how to talk about them. This article covers when AI disclosure is required, when it’s advisable, and what to say.

How lawyers are using AI in legal practice today

Clients might be most concerned about AI use for substantive legal work, but that’s not the only area where lawyers are using AI. In fact, there are many AI use cases for lawyers. AI powers legal technologies that improve every stage of the client lifecycle, including intake, service delivery, time tracking, and billing.

Once you begin work on matters, Clio Work combines context-aware AI with a global legal library of over one billion verified documents to create a single workspace that assists with both litigation and transactional work. In addition, AI in Clio Draft automates everything from client information gathering to legal document drafting.

As you continue working on matters, Manage AI transforms scheduling orders and hearing notices into actionable events and reminders. It also creates draft invoices, checks for accuracy, and speeds up approvals.

Clients likely won’t worry about AI that handles routine intake or scheduling but may have concerns about AI involved in substantive legal tasks, especially after reading news stories where lawyers misuse AI tools.

Distinguishing between different uses of AI in legal work

Even if you use AI for substantive legal work, what degree of usage might call for AI disclosures? 

Some use cases would likely not concern a client. For instance, if you have AI review your legal brief for any opportunities to tighten the prose or improve transitions, that usage doesn’t alter the substance of your legal arguments.

But if you have AI suggest arguments and conduct legal research, it’s assisting with traditional lawyer work. The more AI shapes the legal substance—reasoning and precedent—the stronger the case for disclosure.

Why AI disclosure matters more than ever

AI use at law firms is high, and lawyers expect it to increase: Clio’s latest Legal Insights Report notes that 98% of legal professionals use AI tools in some capacity, and for 63%, that adoption began within the past year. As AI moves from experimentation into everyday legal work, lawyers increasingly need to decide whether and how to explain its use to clients.

Another reason AI disclosure matters is that while more firms are starting to disclose their use of AI, many are still doing so without clear structure. Clio’s 2026 Legal Insights Report found that 84% of firms say they disclose AI use to clients at least occasionally, yet 11% have no formal AI policy in place, meaning some firms are using AI without a framework to guide how it should be applied.

When disclosure is mandatory

There are only two instances when disclosure of the use of AI is mandatory. The first is when confidential client information is being shared through the use of an AI tool. AI services that train on uploaded content represent a potential breach of confidentiality. Obtaining the client’s informed consent prior to uploading is therefore mandatory under most rules of professional conduct.

The second instance where disclosure is mandatory is when a law, court rule, or judicial standing order requires it alongside any filing from a law firm. 

In these two circumstances, lawyers should always truthfully disclose AI use. Lawyers are obligated to be truthful and forthright on this issue.

When disclosure is advisable (even if not mandatory)

Even where AI disclosure is not required, it is often still the best course of action because it signals transparency and builds client trust. Recent data shows that 84% of firms disclose AI use to clients at least occasionally, highlighting growing recognition of its importance, even if practices remain inconsistent.

Disclosing AI use up front also helps set expectations and prevent misunderstandings. For example, if a bill comes in lower than expected due to AI-assisted efficiency, a client without context may question what was missed rather than appreciate the value delivered.

As guidance continues to evolve toward greater transparency, early disclosure allows firms to build practices that will not need to be revisited as expectations change. It also reinforces client confidence by demonstrating openness not just about technology use, but about the broader conduct of their matter.

How to talk to clients about AI

In practice, many firms choose to raise AI use early in the client relationship, particularly where technology may affect drafting, document handling, or workflow.

Keep the explanation simple and focused on the client’s interests. What clients want to know is whether AI will affect the quality of your work, the security of their information, or or the cost of representation. A sentence or two addressing those concerns is usually enough.

Invite questions and be prepared for a range of reactions. Some clients will be enthusiastic; others will want reassurance that a human is reviewing everything.

If your use of AI changes during a matter, it is sensible to update the client where that change affects how work is performed or how information is handled.

How to write an AI disclosure

A strong disclosure should:

• Explain how you use AI (research, drafting, document review).
• Confirm that lawyers review and verify all AI-generated content.
• Describe how you protect client data, including whether AI providers use it to train models.
• Explain how AI use benefits the client, such as through cost savings.
• Invite the client to ask questions or request limitations.
• Secure the client’s acknowledgment and consent.

If you’re only using AI for non-substantive work, you might use the below template for your AI disclosure:

Court filing certification

Many judges now require lawyers to certify AI use. Requirements vary, some require disclosure only if AI was used, others require a certificate either way. Check standing orders carefully. Here’s a sample based on common requirements:

AI disclosure dos and don’ts 

Dos

• Specify what AI is used for (research, drafting, review)
• Confirm human review and verification
• Explain how client data is protected
• Invite client questions or instructions
• Update disclosures if AI use changes
• Link AI use to client benefit (e.g., efficiency, cost savings)
• Ensure client consent is documented

Don’ts

• Use vague language like “technology-assisted services”
• Use jargon like “enterprise-grade security” without explanation
• Treat disclosure as a checkbox rather than a conversation
• Bury disclosure in boilerplate they won’t read
• Treat a one-time disclosure as permanent
• Describe what AI could do rather than what you actually use it for
• Overlook court-specific AI certification requirements when filing

Good vs. bad examples

Good example: “We use AI tools to assist with legal research and first drafts of certain documents. Our lawyers review all AI output for accuracy before relying on it. We only use AI tools that keep your data confidential and that don’t use your data to train their models.” 

This tells the client what AI is used for, confirms human oversight, and addresses confidentiality—the three things clients most want to know.

Bad example: “Our firm may utilise advanced technology solutions in the delivery of legal services.”

This says nothing about AI specifically, what it’s used for, or how client information is handled.

Risks of not disclosing AI use to clients

Lawyers who skip AI disclosure when clients would reasonably expect it face several risks:

• Breach of confidentiality. Inputting confidential client data into public AI tools without informed consent can result in inappropriate disclosure to third parties, especially with tools that use inputs for training.
• Ethical violations and disciplinary action. Failing to disclose AI use when clients need that information to make informed decisions about their representation may violate communication duties under the rules of professional conduct. Consequences range from bar investigations to suspension or removal from practice.
• Loss of client trust. Clients who learn about undisclosed AI use after the fact may feel misled, even if no rule was technically violated. That loss of trust can damage the relationship and the firm’s reputation.
• Billing disputes. If AI significantly increases efficiency but the lawyer bills at traditional hourly rates without adjustment or disclosure, the client may view the fee as excessive.

All of these risks share a common solution: tell clients how you use AI from the start.

Strengthen client relationships with AI disclosure

AI disclosure isn’t just about compliance—it’s about trust. Clients who understand how you use AI, and why, are more likely to see it as a benefit rather than a concern. Clear communication at intake, specific language in engagement letters, and attention to court requirements position you to use these tools confidently as they become standard in legal practice. 

The lawyers who get this right won’t just avoid risk. They’ll strengthen client relationships in the process.