ABA Formal Opinion 512: what it means for AI dictation and transcription
Lawyers now dictate memos into AI apps, record client meetings with AI notetakers and ask chatbots to summarize the transcript. In July 2024, the American Bar Association published its first formal ethics opinion on generative AI. It doesn't mention dictation by name, but its reasoning applies directly to every tool that listens to a client conversation. Here's what it says, and what it means in practice.
What Opinion 512 is
Formal Opinion 512, "Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools", was issued on 29 July 2024 by the ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. It explains how the existing Model Rules of Professional Conduct apply when lawyers use generative AI. It covers six duties:
- Competence: understanding the tool well enough to use it, including its limits.
- Confidentiality: protecting information about current, former and prospective clients.
- Communication: telling clients about AI use when they would reasonably want to know.
- Candor: never presenting unchecked AI output to a court.
- Supervision: setting clear policies for everyone in the firm who uses the tools.
- Fees: billing reasonably for work done with AI.
ABA opinions are not binding in themselves: each state's rules and bar opinions govern lawyers there. But they are widely followed, and several state bars have published similar guidance.
The confidentiality question
The heart of the opinion for dictation and transcription is confidentiality. Before putting information relating to a representation into an AI tool, a lawyer must assess the risk that it could be disclosed to, or accessed by, people outside the firm. There's no single answer: it depends on the tool, how it works and what its provider does with your data.
The opinion singles out "self-learning" tools, which learn from what users put in. Because information from one client could resurface in work for another, it says a client's informed consent is required before information relating to the representation goes into such a tool. And that consent has to be real: the opinion says that "merely adding general, boiler-plate provisions to engagement letters" is not enough. The client needs to understand the specific risks and benefits.
To make that assessment, the opinion expects lawyers to read and understand a tool's terms of use, its privacy policy and related terms, or to consult someone who has: a colleague or an outside expert. The key questions are who can access what you put in, whether it's used to train AI, and how long it's kept.
Applying it to dictation and transcription
A recorded client meeting, a dictated attendance note or a voice memo about a case is information relating to the representation. So the question is simply where it goes.
- Cloud transcription and AI notetakers send your audio to the provider's servers. Depending on the provider, recordings and transcripts may be kept, reviewed or used to train AI. That's exactly the kind of risk the opinion asks you to assess, and, for a self-learning tool, to get informed consent for. Our guide is Otter.ai safe for confidential meetings? shows what to look for in one provider's policy.
- On-device transcription turns speech into text on your own phone or computer. The audio never reaches a third party, so the question of disclosure to the provider doesn't arise. You still need to secure the device and its backups.
- Summaries and drafts made by AI raise the competence and candor duties too. The opinion is clear that lawyers can't rely on AI output without checking it. A transcript that mishears a name, a date or a "not" can change the meaning of a note.
A practical checklist
- Map where your audio goes for each tool you use: device, provider's servers, or the provider's subcontractors.
- Read the terms. Look for AI training, human review, retention periods and who the provider shares data with.
- Prefer tools that keep client data under your control, ideally on your device and encrypted.
- Get informed consent where it's needed, in plain words about the specific tool, not a clause buried in the engagement letter.
- Switch off training and sharing options, and delete recordings you no longer need.
- Check every transcript and summary before relying on it or sending it.
- Record only with permission. Recording laws vary: in some places everyone in the conversation must agree.
- Write it down. A short firm policy on which tools are approved, and for what, covers the supervision duty.
Outside the United States
Opinion 512 applies to US lawyers, but the questions it asks are universal. Professional secrecy rules in other countries, and data protection laws such as the GDPR in Europe, also require you to know where client information goes and who can see it.
Where Dictalock fits
We're building Dictalock so the confidentiality question has a simple answer. Dictation, transcription and summaries all happen on your iPhone: nothing is sent to our servers or anyone else's, and nothing is used to train AI. Every note is encrypted with a key only you hold, and the audio stays with the transcript so you can check what was really said. See secure dictation for lawyers and how Dictalock works.
This guide is general information, not legal advice. Check the rules and ethics opinions that apply in your jurisdiction.