ABA Opinion 512 Compliance Checklist
A 13-item checklist covering the documentation ABA Formal Opinion 512 calls for and that a firm should be ready to produce at malpractice renewal. A firm that can check every item has the core documentation in place.
This is the audit-level checklist. Each row confirms that a deeper artifact exists (the policy, the verification log, the vendor file, the training records). The "Resource" column links to the artifact that satisfies the item; this page is the cover sheet that proves the rest are in place. Print this page, walk it with your managing partner, and file the signed copy in the renewal binder.
On this page
How to use this checklist
- Print or download. Print the table below or save the page to PDF. Each row is a single, verifiable artifact, not a goal.
- Walk through with the managing partner. For each item, confirm whether the documentation exists, where it's stored, and who owns it. Mark items that lack an artifact, not items that "happen informally." Renewal binders rest on documentation, not intentions.
- File the signed copy in the renewal binder. Renewal questionnaires that probe AI governance generally expect a dated, signed artifact behind the answer. The completed checklist itself is one of those artifacts: it shows the firm has self-audited.
- Close gaps using the linked resources. Items that need a written policy link to the Policy Template; verification items link to the Court Disclosure Templates; training items link to Training and CLE.
When to refresh
The checklist is a living document. At minimum, refresh it:
- Annually, ideally 60-90 days before malpractice renewal so the binder is current at submission.
- When your state bar issues new AI guidance. Track the State Bar AI Guidance tracker for your state.
- When you adopt a new AI tool. Add it to the vendor diligence list, run the policy against it, train staff, then re-check the affected items.
- When a court you practice in adopts an AI order or local rule. Track the Court Orders tracker; verification items may need to be tightened.
- After any AI-related incident. Document in the incident log, then revisit verification and supervision items.
The 13-item checklist
| Rule | Checklist Item | Resource | Done? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Attorneys can describe the AI tools in use and their key limitations | Training and CLE | |
| 1.1 | Firm has a written AI policy in place and all staff have signed an acknowledgment | Acknowledgment Form | |
| 1.4 | Engagement letter includes AI disclosure language and a public Notice of AI Practices is published | Client AI Notice | |
| 1.5 | Billing policy addresses how AI efficiency affects hourly billing | — | |
| 1.6 | Each approved AI tool has been vetted against the vendor due diligence checklist | Vendor Checklist | |
| 1.6 | Client informed consent on file for any tool that retains or trains on submitted data | Informed Consent Form | |
| 3.3 | Verification log completed for any filing that used AI for research, drafting, or analysis | Verification Log | |
| 3.3 | Court-specific certification language confirmed against the assigned judge's standing order | Court disclosure templates | |
| 5.1, 5.3 | Managing partner has reviewed and signed the AI policy | — | |
| 5.1, 5.3 | Training records on file for all attorneys and staff | Training and CLE | |
| 5.1, 5.3 | Associates and paralegals know the escalation path for AI uncertainty | — | |
| Renewal-readiness | AI usage log maintained with tool, matter, date, and attorney | — | |
| Renewal-readiness | Incident log in place for AI errors that reached a client or court | — |
How renewal questionnaires probe each item
The only verbatim AI question on a US LPL application form located in our research is AmTrust's Section III, question 13 (form LPLPRO-APP-01 0523). The phrasings below are plausible renewal-application questions that map to each checklist item, drawn from documented carrier activity and broker reporting; treat them as illustrative, not as published carrier requirements. A firm that has the artifact has a defensible answer.
- Attorneys can describe the AI tools in use and their key limitations
- Rule 1.1 "Have your attorneys received training on the AI tools in use at the firm?"
- Firm has a written AI policy in place and all staff have signed an acknowledgment
- Rule 1.1 "Does your firm have a written policy governing the use of generative AI, and have all attorneys and staff acknowledged it in writing?"
- Engagement letter includes AI disclosure language and a public Notice of AI Practices is published
- Rule 1.4 "How do you disclose AI use to clients?"
- Billing policy addresses how AI efficiency affects hourly billing
- Rule 1.5 "How do you bill for time saved by AI tools?"
- Each approved AI tool has been vetted against the vendor due diligence checklist
- Rule 1.6 "What due diligence do you perform before approving an AI tool?"
- Client informed consent on file for any tool that retains or trains on submitted data
- Rule 1.6 "Do you obtain client consent before inputting client information into AI tools?"
- Verification log completed for any filing that used AI for research, drafting, or analysis
- Rule 3.3 "What controls prevent AI-generated false citations from reaching court filings?"
- Court-specific certification language confirmed against the assigned judge's standing order
- Rule 3.3 "How do you confirm AI-disclosure requirements in courts your firm appears in?"
- Managing partner has reviewed and signed the AI policy
- Rule 5.1, 5.3 "Who at the firm is responsible for AI governance?"
- Training records on file for all attorneys and staff
- Rule 5.1, 5.3 "Have all attorneys and staff completed AI competency training?"
- Associates and paralegals know the escalation path for AI uncertainty
- Rule 5.1, 5.3 "Who reviews AI-generated work product before it leaves the firm?"
- AI usage log maintained with tool, matter, date, and attorney
- Rule Renewal-readiness "Do you maintain a log of AI tool usage by matter?"
- Incident log in place for AI errors that reached a client or court
- Rule Renewal-readiness "Have you experienced any AI-related incidents in the past 12 months?"
Last verified against ABA Formal Opinion 512: 2026-04-29. Carrier question phrasing drawn from public underwriter materials and the carrier activity summary; phrasing in your renewal application may differ.