The duty of technology competence for lawyers - what Rule 1.1 Comment 8 requires
By LegiMatch Research Team · Published October 14, 2026 · 4 min read
Short answer: Since 2012, Comment 8 to ABA Model Rule 1.1 has said that keeping up with the law and its practice includes "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology". Most states have adopted the same or similar language. It doesn't require you to use any particular tool. It requires you to understand the tools you use, or should consider using, well enough to protect your clients. ABA Formal Opinion 512 applies this to generative AI.
This article is general information, not legal or ethics advice. Your state's version of the rule controls.
Where the duty comes from
Model Rule 1.1 requires "the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation". In August 2012 the ABA amended Comment [8] to read:
"To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject."
The change came from the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, which also added Rule 1.6(c) on safeguarding client information.
How states have adopted it
- Most states have adopted Comment 8 or similar wording, either through their own rules or through ethics opinions. Check your state's current rule.
- A few states require technology CLE. Florida was the first to require technology credits (three hours per three-year cycle, from 2017). North Carolina requires one hour of technology training a year. New York requires a cybersecurity, privacy and data protection credit.
What the duty covers in practice
| Area | What competence looks like |
|---|---|
| Research tools | Knowing what a tool covers and doesn't, how it ranks results, and how to confirm a case is still good law |
| Generative AI | Understanding that AI can produce plausible but false citations and statements, and checking every authority before relying on it (Opinion 512) |
| Confidentiality | Knowing how your tools store and share client data (Rule 1.6(c), Opinions 477R and 498) |
| E-discovery | Understanding electronically stored information well enough to preserve, collect and produce it, or bringing in someone who does |
| Communication | Using email, e-filing and video securely, and knowing their basic risks |
| Supervision | Making sure staff and vendors use technology consistently with your duties (Rules 5.1 and 5.3) |
Generative AI and Opinion 512
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) says lawyers using generative AI need a "reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations" of the specific tool. You don't need to be an expert. You can rely on vendors and others who are, but you must check the output appropriately. The opinion notes the risk of AI inventing citations. Courts have sanctioned lawyers who filed briefs with non-existent cases, including the widely reported Mata v. Avianca, Inc. in the Southern District of New York in 2023.
Practical ways to meet the duty
- Read the help pages for every research tool you use: what it covers, how its search works, and what its flags mean.
- Do a verification step every time. Read each cited case and confirm it's still good law before filing.
- Write a short firm technology policy covering approved tools, what client information may go into them, and who checks AI-assisted work.
- Take one technology CLE a year, even if your state doesn't require it.
- Review tools once a year. Terms, features and risks change.
- Ask for help. The rule lets you associate with someone who has the skill, such as an e-discovery vendor, an IT consultant or a law librarian.
Frequently asked questions
Does tech competence mean I have to use AI?
No. The comment requires understanding the benefits and risks of relevant technology, not adopting any particular tool. Some commentators say that as tools become standard, choosing not to use them may affect what counts as reasonable efficiency and fees, but no rule requires AI use.
Has my state adopted Comment 8?
Most have, sometimes with different wording or through an ethics opinion. Check your state's rules of professional conduct or ask your state bar's ethics hotline.
Can I be disciplined for not understanding technology?
Discipline usually follows harm or a clear failure, such as filing fake citations, losing client data through careless security, or failing to preserve electronic evidence. The competence duty is often cited alongside other rules in those cases.
Does using a reputable vendor satisfy the duty?
It helps, but you still need to understand the tool's limits and check its output. Choosing a vendor carefully is part of the duty, not a replacement for it.
Sources
- ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 and Comment [8]
- ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20, Report to the House of Delegates (August 2012)
- ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (July 29, 2024)
- The Florida Bar, technology CLE requirement (Rule 6-10.3, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar)
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023) (sanctions order)
This article is general information about legal research, not legal advice. Verify every authority before relying on it.
All articlesMore from the blog
- Can AI find a case from its facts alone? A published test of similar-case searchWe rewrote 80 real court decisions in plain words, removed every name and citation, and measured how often LegiMatch Case Match finds the exact original among 4.7 million U.S. court decisions - with the method, so anyone can repeat it.
- Cases you may have missed - finding authority your brief doesn't citeAfter LegiMatch checks your brief, one click runs a fact-based search on the brief itself and lists strong matching decisions you haven't cited - how it works, what it costs and how to use the results.
- How accurate is LegiMatch Brief Check? A blind test on real court documentsOur blind test of the brief checker, with a detection rate for each kind of citation mistake - wrong court, year, pin cite, case name, quotation, invented case, wrong volume, swapped citations and statutes - plus how often it wrongly flags correct citations, measured on real court decisions and U.S. Supreme Court briefs nobody had used before.