Insights

AI and legal ethics: the lawyer's duties

3 min read · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

The integration of AI into the legal profession requires compliance with the principles of the Code of Conduct. Although there are no specific rules, the duties of competence and personal performance require the lawyer to maintain the primacy of human intellectual input, avoiding the full delegation of legal advice or court filings to the algorithm.

In brief

Integrating AI into the legal profession requires compliance with the Code of Conduct. Articles 14 and 50 mandate duties of competence and truthfulness, requiring human supervision to prevent legal hallucinations. EU Regulation 2024/1689 (AI Act), effective August 2, 2026, imposes fines up to 15 million euros on deployers for transparency violations. Uploading personal data to generic models violates confidentiality and GDPR. The Rome Bar Association Vademecum recommends double verification and client disclosure. The National Bar Council has included AI in mandatory continuing legal education.

1.
The duty of competence and the Code of Conduct
The Code of Conduct imposes the duty of competence under Art. 14. AI use is considered instrumental support: the professional must possess the necessary preparation to supervise the technological output, ensuring that human intellectual input remains predominant in every filed document.
2.
Duty of truth and legal hallucinations
Case law has already demonstrated the risks of non-existent citations: international courts have imposed significant penalties for the negligent use of artificial intelligence. Lawyers are liable for violating the duty of truth under Art. 50 and competence under Art. 14 of the Code of Conduct if they fail to verify every single source cited by AI.
3.
Confidentiality and AI Act sanctions
As of August 2, 2026, EU Regulation 2024/1689 imposes sanctions up to 15 million euros (or 3% of total turnover) on deployers violating transparency obligations. Law firms must avoid uploading personal data to unprotected models, choosing European GDPR-compliant infrastructures such as those provided by edit.legal.
Apply this research directly with edit.legal
Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. Try edit.legal for free, no credit card.
Try edit.legal
4.
The choice of tool as an act of diligence
Professional diligence requires selecting vertical tools that query verified official sources. While generalist models may invent precedents, edit.legal analyzes over one million documents including legislation, Supreme Court rulings, and the Official Gazette to ensure verified citations.
5.
Duty of information and transparency to the client
Providing specific disclosure on the use of AI systems is a recommended best practice to ensure transparency in executing the mandate. Although not an explicit obligation under the Code of Conduct, this practice promotes compliance with the general duties of fairness and loyalty.
6.
Minimum law firm policy in three rules
The Rome Bar Association Vademecum suggests three core rules: the Data Shield (a ban on uploading identifying data to generalist systems), double verification against official databases, and client transparency through written disclosure regarding the use of agentic systems.
7.
Technology adoption and mandatory training
The CENSIS Report shows that a growing number of lawyers already use AI, while the National Bar Council has included the topic within mandatory continuing legal education. An internal analysis by edit.legal confirms that user queries increasingly focus on the reliability of automated legal databases.

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMContent drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction

Frequently asked questions

What sanctions do I risk if the AI invents a court ruling?

In addition to civil liability for frivolous litigation under Art. 96 c.p.c., lawyers face disciplinary sanctions for breaching the duties of truth and competence. International cases have already led to financial penalties for failing to verify cited sources.

Can I enter client names into ChatGPT or Claude?

No, unless using an enterprise version that contractually guarantees data protection and a Training-Free clause. From an ethical standpoint, entering identifying data into generic systems violates confidentiality duties and the AI Act rules applicable from August 2026.

Must the use of AI be communicated to the client?

Although no specific obligation exists in the Code of Conduct, informing the client represents a best practice aligned with general duties of professional fairness and transparency.