← All states

D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388 (Apr 2024)

Summary

DC has a formal ethics opinion (Opinion 388, April 2024) and binding RPC amendments (Order M284-24, effective April 7, 2025) codifying technology competence and vendor oversight obligations into the rules. Opinion 388 covers competence, confidentiality vetting, supervision, billing, and candor. Neither the D.D.C. nor the D.C. Circuit has a court-wide AI standing order.

Applicable ABA Model Rules

• Rule 1.1
• Rule 1.2
• Rule 1.5
• Rule 1.6
• Rule 1.16
• Rule 3.3
• Rule 3.4
• Rule 4.4
• Rule 5.1
• Rule 5.3
• Rule 8.4

Carrier Implications

Failure to vet an AI vendor's security practices is now a rule violation under amended Rule 5.3, not merely a best-practice failure. Carriers can point to amended Rule 5.3 when evaluating whether a data breach from an AI vendor's inadequate security was caused by attorney negligence.

D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388 (April 2024) is the operative ethics opinion: it requires reasonable understanding of AI tools before client use, vendor data-practice review under Rule 1.6(f), supervision of AI-assisted work, citation verification under Rules 3.3 and 3.4, and bills only for actual time (not pre-AI benchmarks). The opinion characterizes AI as “an omniscient, eager-to-please intern who sometimes lies to you.”

Order M284-24 (effective April 7, 2025) amended the DC Rules of Professional Conduct to name generative AI in Rule 1.1 Comment 5, expand Rule 1.6(f) to cover unauthorized access (not just disclosure), and add new Rule 5.3 Comments 3-4 establishing supervisory obligations for nonlawyer service providers including AI vendors. Neither the D.D.C. nor the D.C. Circuit has issued a court-wide AI standing order.

Bottom line for a 5-50 attorney DC firm: Opinion 388 is detailed and actionable, covering competence, confidentiality vetting, supervision, billing, and candor obligations. The 2025 RPC amendments to Rules 1.1, 1.6, and 5.3 codify vendor oversight as a binding duty.

Last verified: April 23, 2026