At Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, we spend a lot of time thinking about the intersection of legal technology and professional liability. That perspective is exactly why the recent WisBar article by Matthew M. Beier, Senior Vice President at WILMIC, matters to every practicing attorney in the state.
Beier’s piece, Managing Risk Communication, Consent, and AI: Timeless Professional Duties in a Changing Practice, cuts through the noise around AI and focuses on what actually creates risk for attorneys and their clients. If you are thinking about how your legal malpractice insurance coverage fits into your firm’s AI strategy, this conversation is worth having now rather than after something goes wrong.
AI Is Not Going Away, and It’s Important to Understand the Risks
Beier opens with a point that is hard to argue with. Regardless of one’s level of comfort with artificial intelligence, AI is here to stay, and attorneys have a professional obligation to learn what AI is and when and how to use it responsibly to avoid associated risks.
The risk is not just in using AI carelessly. Staying completely on the sidelines while the rest of the profession moves forward carries its own professional liability exposure. Legal technology has advanced to the point where tools such as generative artificial intelligence, smart contracts, data analytics, and cloud computing are so powerful that they are revolutionizing the practice of law.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules generally require attorneys to keep current with changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Lawyers need to keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, in order to comply with the competence requirements under Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules.
The Fake Citation Problem Is Real, But It Is Not the Whole Picture
The story of the New York lawyer who used ChatGPT to write a legal brief that included completely fictional cases and citations is now well known. That case became a cautionary tale that spread through every corner of the legal profession almost overnight. Submitting fabricated citations to a court is not a minor misstep.
But Beier’s analysis goes further than just warning attorneys not to blindly copy AI output into court filings. Formal guidance for attorneys on avoiding the worst AI outcomes varies by jurisdiction. Guidance on AI tends to come from a mix of professional commentary, court decisions, ethics opinions, and local court rules, depending on the jurisdiction.
Lawyers using AI tools must carefully manage nonlawyer assistance, protect confidentiality, provide competent representation, exercise independent professional judgment, and verify the accuracy and authenticity of text and citations generated by the software.
Client Communication May Be the Bigger Exposure
In a time when artificial intelligence and large language models are revolutionizing how legal services are delivered, Wisconsin attorneys must not lose sight of their ethical obligation to communicate meaningfully with their clients.
Think about what that means in practice. A firm adopts an AI tool that handles initial client communications, status updates, and document explanations. The technology works smoothly. Clients get responses faster. The attorney spends more time on substantive legal work.
However, there is the risk that lawyers might begin to view communication as just another task to automate. When that happens, the human connection that builds trust and catches misunderstandings starts to erode. A client who feels like they are talking to a machine is also a client who may not understand what their lawyer is actually doing for them.
Confidentiality Is a Real Concern With Third-Party AI Tools
Attorneys in Wisconsin and elsewhere are bound by strict confidentiality obligations. Wisconsin attorneys are bound by strict ethical rules regarding client confidentiality. When using AI tools, particularly cloud-based or third-party software, sensitive client data may be at risk of exposure.
This is where the practical implementation challenges get complicated. Many AI tools, especially the widely available consumer-facing ones, are not designed with attorney-client privilege or legal confidentiality in mind. Attorneys who input client information into those systems without understanding how the data is stored, used, or shared may be creating confidentiality problems they do not even know about yet.
The Wisconsin Rules Are Your Compass, Not AI’s Output
Beier’s writing consistently returns to one central theme: as the legal industry continues to migrate to widespread use of AI, the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct serve as a constant compass. The technology changes. The ethical obligations do not.
Wisconsin attorneys who want to use AI responsibly should be asking themselves a few practical questions.
- Do you understand how the AI tools you are using handle client data?
- Do you have a firm policy governing AI use, and does your staff actually know what it says?
- Are you verifying AI-generated output before it goes to a client or a court?
- When something feels off, are you reaching out to your malpractice carrier early enough to get in front of a potential problem?
We encourage attorneys to reach out to us early if a situation is developing. Delayed reporting may make it harder for an us to investigate, assess liability, and mount an effective defense.
AI is a powerful tool. In the right hands, used thoughtfully, it may well make Wisconsin attorneys more effective advocates for their clients. But it does not change the fundamental responsibility that comes with a law license.
If AI is part of your practice, make sure your risk plan keeps pace. Talk with Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company about practical steps for using these tools responsibly, protecting confidentiality, and staying ahead of potential claims.