Can Georgia Lawyers Use ChatGPT? What the Rules Require
An associate pastes a client’s deposition summary into a free ChatGPT account to get a quick outline. It takes thirty seconds. Nobody at the firm…
An associate pastes a client’s deposition summary into a free ChatGPT account to get a quick outline. It takes thirty seconds. Nobody at the firm knows it happened, and nobody read the tool’s terms of service first.
Yes, Georgia lawyers can use ChatGPT, but the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct apply to every use. The State Bar of Georgia’s Generative AI Toolkit says lawyers must review all AI output, must not put confidential client information into a tool without adequate confidentiality and security protections, and must bill fairly. ABA Formal Opinion 512 adds that a client’s informed consent is required before client information goes into a self-learning tool.
Is it ethical for a Georgia lawyer to use ChatGPT?
Yes, if the lawyer uses it the way the rules require. Georgia has no rule that bans generative AI. The State Bar of Georgia’s Generative AI Toolkit applies the existing Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct to it, including competence (Rule 1.1), fees (Rule 1.5), confidentiality (Rule 1.6), candor to the court (Rule 3.3), and supervision (Rules 5.1 and 5.3).
The Toolkit puts it plainly: AI “cannot apply legal reasoning, understand justice or assume ethical responsibility. That remains the role of the lawyer.” For why the absence of a formal Georgia opinion does not reduce the risk, see Georgia Has No AI Ethics Opinion. Georgia Lawyers Are Being Sanctioned Anyway.
Which Georgia rules apply when a lawyer uses ChatGPT?
Five groups of rules do most of the work. The table shows what each requires when ChatGPT or a similar tool is involved.
| Rule | What it requires with AI |
|---|---|
| Rule 1.1, Competence | Understand what the tool can and cannot do, and review every output with professional judgment |
| Rule 1.5, Fees | Charge reasonable fees and explain how AI affects billing |
| Rule 1.6, Confidentiality | Keep client information out of tools without adequate confidentiality and security protections |
| Rule 3.3, Candor | Never submit false law or facts to a court, including AI errors |
| Rules 5.1 and 5.3, Supervision | Set firm policies, train lawyers and staff, and supervise AI output as you would a human assistant’s work |
Can I put client information into ChatGPT?
Not into a tool that lacks adequate confidentiality and security protections. The Toolkit says a lawyer “should not input confidential client information into any generative AI solution that lacks adequate confidentiality and security protections,” and should anonymize client information. The duty also covers prospective and former clients.
ABA Formal Opinion 512 goes further for self-learning tools. Because their output could lead to disclosure of client information, “a client’s informed consent is required prior to inputting information relating to the representation into such a GAI tool.” The opinion adds that general, boilerplate consent language in an engagement letter “is not sufficient.” For the client-side version of this problem, see Your Client Talked to an AI Before They Called You.
Is a paid or enterprise ChatGPT plan safer for client work?
It can be. The Toolkit warns that click-through and shrink-wrap terms often disclaim any duty of confidentiality, so information shared with such tools “may not be protected under a legally enforceable duty of non-disclosure.” It suggests considering a premium or enterprise plan with stronger privacy terms, and it names ChatGPT Enterprise features such as encryption, audit logs, and contractual data use restrictions.
A paid plan is not a substitute for reading the terms. Before any client work, confirm:
- Training use: whether the vendor uses your prompts or outputs to train its models.
- Retention: how long prompts and outputs are kept, and whether they are purged.
- Flow-down: whether the vendor’s confidentiality duties pass to any company whose model it uses.
- Access: who at the vendor can see your data.
Do I have to verify ChatGPT’s legal research?
Yes, every time. The Toolkit calls hallucinations a unique pitfall of generative AI and says a lawyer “has not met his or her ethical obligations” when a GenAI-drafted brief turns out to cite false cases. Rule 3.3 makes the lawyer responsible for what reaches the court, whoever or whatever drafted it.
Some Georgia judges now require proof. A Fulton County Superior Court standing order in Judge Kelly Lee Ellerbe’s division requires disclosure of AI use and certification under penalty of perjury that “every citation to law, case, statute, or the record in this document has been verified as accurate.” In October 2026, Cherokee County judges began requiring anyone who uses AI on a court filing to disclose it and certify that the citations were checked.
Can my paralegal check the AI output for me?
A paralegal can help, but the duty to verify stays with the lawyer. Out of state, a California appellate court held that handing the check of AI-assisted quotations to a paralegal did not satisfy the lawyer’s own duty to verify. Georgia’s Rule 5.3 requires lawyers to supervise nonlawyer assistants and the tools they use. I covered how that works in Your Paralegal Checked the AI. Did You?
How should a Georgia lawyer bill for work done with ChatGPT?
Bill for the time actually spent. ABA Formal Opinion 512 says a lawyer billing hourly may charge for the time spent entering information into the tool and reviewing the draft, but must bill only for actual time spent. It also warns that charging the same flat fee for work AI made much faster may be unreasonable under Rule 1.5.
The Georgia Toolkit adds that lawyers should explain to clients how AI affects their fees, and that a written engagement agreement is good practice.
What should a Georgia firm’s ChatGPT policy include?
Rules 5.1 and 5.3 require reasonable measures, and the Toolkit says firms will need policies and training for lawyers and nonlawyers. A workable policy covers six points:
- Approved tools. List the AI tools the firm allows, and ban personal accounts for client work.
- Data rules. Define what may never be entered, such as client names, sealed material, and personal health information.
- Client consent. Set when the firm obtains informed consent and how it is documented.
- Verification. Require a named person to check every citation and quotation against the source.
- Billing. Bill actual time and disclose AI-related charges in writing.
- Training. Train lawyers and staff, and keep a record of who completed it.
Are other states making AI rules for lawyers?
Yes. Out of state, California enacted SB 574, effective January 1, 2027, which provides that “An attorney shall not delegate the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence” and requires attorneys to verify AI output, including citations. It does not apply to Georgia lawyers, but it shows where the rules are heading. I explained it in California Just Made AI Verification the Law.
ChatGPT for lawyers: frequently asked questions
Is ChatGPT banned for Georgia lawyers? No. Georgia has no rule banning it. The existing Rules of Professional Conduct govern how it is used.
Do I have to tell my client I use ChatGPT? Yes. The Toolkit says clients “must be made aware of the role of AI in their case,” and ABA Formal Opinion 512 requires informed consent before client information goes into a self-learning tool.
Can ChatGPT replace legal research tools? No. It can help draft and organize, but its citations and quotations must be checked against the original sources.
Can a firm use an AI chatbot for client intake? With safeguards. The Toolkit warns that intake chatbots can collect confidential information that creates conflicts, and recommends limiting what the chatbot collects before a conflicts check or using clear disclaimers.
What is the bottom line?
Georgia lawyers can use ChatGPT, but the Rules of Professional Conduct govern every use: keep client information out of tools without adequate confidentiality protections, get informed consent before using self-learning tools with client information, verify every citation yourself, bill hourly work at actual time, and put a written AI policy in place for lawyers and staff.
Follow me on LinkedIn for one AI safeguard for law firms every week, and subscribe on YouTube for the full episodes.
This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. It reflects the State Bar of Georgia’s Generative AI Toolkit, ABA Formal Opinion 512, and authority available as of October 2026. Out-of-state authority is labeled and is not binding in Georgia.
