Three New Jersey Attorneys on Disclosing AI Use to Clients: Their Questions, My Answers

The question of whether to tell a client you're using artificial intelligence is causing more anxiety in small New Jersey firms than almost any other AI issue. It feels like a trap. If you disclose, you risk confusing the client or inviting scrutiny. If you don't, you worry you're violating an ethical duty. The anxiety is understandable, but the answer isn't a simple yes or no. It depends entirely on how you're using the tool.

Your guiding star here is New Jersey’s Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4, Communication. The rule requires you to keep a client “reasonably informed about the status of the matter” and to provide explanations “to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions.” The key phrases are “status of the matter” and “informed decisions.”

I frequently get questions on this from my consulting clients. Let's walk through three common scenarios I've encountered with NJ attorneys to see how RPC 1.4 applies in the real world.

Attorney #1: The Cautious Transactional Lawyer

One attorney, who runs a brisk practice handling small business contracts, asked me this: “I use an AI tool to generate first drafts of standard agreements. I review and edit every word, but it saves hours. My clients get a better price because of it. Do I really have to mention the software and make them think a robot wrote their contract?”

My answer centered on the client's “informed decisions.” A primary decision a client makes is about fees. Here, the use of AI directly affects the cost of the legal service. The communication doesn't need to be technical. It should be framed as a client benefit. You could include language in your engagement letter or a verbal discussion stating something like: “To provide cost-effective services, our firm uses advanced software tools to assist in drafting initial documents. All work product is carefully reviewed and customized by an attorney to meet your specific needs.”

This approach is transparent, highlights a benefit (lower cost), and reassures the client of your direct supervision, satisfying both RPC 1.4 (communication) and 1.1 (competence).

Attorney #2: The High-Volume Litigator

Next, a partner at a small litigation firm presented a different problem. “We’re using an AI-assisted platform for e-discovery and privilege review in a document-heavy case. It's becoming standard practice. But if I tell the client and the tool misses a privileged document, am I more exposed than if I had just kept quiet? Isn't it just an internal tool like Westlaw?”

This is a great question because it connects communication (RPC 1.4) with competence (RPC 1.1) and supervisory duties (RPC 5.1). An AI review tool isn't quite like Westlaw. It makes predictive judgments about documents that you are ultimately responsible for supervising. The communication here is a matter of risk management and setting expectations.

In this case, the conversation is about the discovery process and budget. The client needs to be reasonably informed about the methods used to manage their case and its costs. You might explain it this way: “For large-scale document review, we use a combination of attorney review and industry-standard AI-powered technology. This is the most efficient method for handling a case of this size and helps manage discovery costs.” You aren't asking for permission to use a specific brand; you are informing them of the process you are competently managing on their behalf. This helps them make informed decisions about the case budget and strategy.

Attorney #3: The Solo Estate Planner

A solo estate planner had a more nuanced situation. “I use ChatGPT as a thought partner. I brainstorm ideas for complex trust provisions or ask it to explain intricate tax concepts in simple terms. I never copy its output. It’s just for my own thinking. Surely I don’t have to tell my client I used a chatbot to think about their estate plan?”

This is the grayest area. RPC 1.4 applies to the “status of the matter,” not necessarily your own internal thought process. If you were to read a practice guide or talk to a mentor, you wouldn't disclose that to the client. This use of AI is similar. The duty to communicate isn't triggered by an internal, educational use of a tool.

The ethical tripwire, however, is competence. If your brainstorming with an AI leads you to suggest a novel or complex strategy, you are 100% responsible for its validity. You must independently verify every aspect of that advice. You can’t blame the AI if the idea is flawed. While direct disclosure for brainstorming isn’t likely required, the best practice is to have a general statement in your engagement letter. Something simple like, “The firm may use various technological tools to improve efficiency and work product, all of which remains subject to the attorney's final professional judgment and verification.”

For New Jersey attorneys, the core question is not if you used AI, but whether its use impacts a decision the client is entitled to make. If it affects their bill, the strategy for their case, or a significant risk they are taking, then communication under RPC 1.4 is your best tool for building trust and managing your own risk.