Mechanism
AI use creates exposure under conduct rules that govern lawyers individually — separate from regulatory exposure on the function. Categories: competence (using a tool whose limits the lawyer does not understand), candour (not disclosing AI assistance where required), confidentiality (the lawyer's individual duty), supervision (responsibility for AI-assisted work by team members), misrepresentation (presenting AI output as the lawyer's analysis without acknowledgement).
Evidence (what the Evidence Register holds)
Attribution standards documentation; jurisdiction-specific disclosure protocols; supervision frameworks updated for AI-mediated tasks; close-call feedback loop; per-jurisdiction conduct-rule mapping.
Mitigation
Attribution standards; AI-disclosure protocols by jurisdiction (ABA Op 512 + state bar opinions; SRA AI guidance; Singapore Bar Council guidance); supervision frameworks; competence training tied to AI capability changes.
Editorial Framing
Professional conduct exposure is the class that sits on the individual lawyer, not the function. It is therefore the class most often under-evidenced at the function level — the General Counsel cannot maintain decision traceability without each lawyer's cooperation. The mitigation is attribution + disclosure + supervision discipline, embedded in the function's standing operating practice.
Indicative Examples
- Using a tool whose limits the lawyer does not understand (competence)
- Not disclosing AI assistance where required (candour)
- Presenting AI output as the lawyer's analysis without acknowledgement (misrepresentation)
- Inadequate supervision of AI-assisted work by junior team members