Polish, European and U.S. standards for lawyers’ use of AI – a comparison of selected ethical obligations
Dominik Horodyski
Uniwersytet SWPShttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7574-5512
Kamil Makowski
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1922-4453
Abstract
The rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) presents the legal profession with new ethical challenges, requiring established professional standards to be reinterpreted in the context of the digital transformation of legal practice. This article compares the ethical standards governing lawyers’ use of AI tools in Poland, Europe and the United States, focusing on five key areas: professional competence and due diligence; confidentiality and data protection; client relations; duties towards the court; and internal law firm procedures. The analysis covers American Bar Association (ABA) Formal Opinion 512, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) Guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers, and the Polish National Bar Council of Legal Advisors (Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych, KIRP) Recommendations. Despite their normative foundations differing, all three frameworks share the principle that professional responsibility for work product cannot be transferred to an AI tool. The Polish recommendations are most firmly grounded in EU law (the AI Act and GDPR), the American standards rely on the ABA Model Rules and the European approach emphasises continuing legal education. In all examined systems, lawyers are fully accountable for the outcome of their work, regardless of the degree of AI involvement.
Keywords:
law of new technologies, artificial intelligence, AI, legal professional ethics, generative artificial intelligence, confidentiality, professional competence, lawyer accountability.References
Abbasi Z., Responsible legal augmentation: integrating generative AI into legal practice, „Law, Technology and Humans” 2025, t. 7, nr 3. Google Scholar
American Bar Association, Formal opinion 512: generative artificial intelligence tools, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf. Google Scholar
American Bar Association, Model rules of professional conduct, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/. Google Scholar
Borelli M., Kerrigan C., Mush S., The EU AI Act: a comprehensive regulatory framework for ethical ai development, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4549248. Google Scholar
Browning J.G., Robot lawyers don’t have disciplinary hearings – real lawyers do: the ethical risks and responses in using generative artificial intelligence, „Georgia State University Law Review” 2024, t. 40, nr 4, https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol40/iss4/9. Google Scholar
Conley A., Understanding the duty of competence for attorneys using generative AI, „North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology” 2025, t. 27, nr 1. Google Scholar
Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Charter of core principles of the European legal profession and code of conduct for European lawyers, https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/DEONTOLOGY/DEON_CoC/EN_DEONTO_2021_Model_Code.pdf. Google Scholar
Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, CCBE considerations on the legal aspects of artificial intelligence, https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20200220_CCBE-considerations-on-the-Legal-Aspects-of-AI.pdf. Google Scholar
Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, CCBE guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers, https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20251002_CCBE-guide-on-the-use-of-the-use-of-generative-AI-for-lawyers.pdf. Google Scholar
Eliot L.B., American Bar Association lowers the boom and lays down the law on lawyers’ proper use of generative AI, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2024/07/31/american-bar-association-lowers-the-boom-and-lays-down-the-law-on-lawyers-proper-use-of-generative-ai/. Google Scholar
Frostestad H.L., Technologically competent reprised: ethical practice in an AI age and considerations for our courts in a burgeoning AI era, „Belmont Law Review” 2025, t. 12. Google Scholar
Garon J.M., Ethics 3.0 – attorney responsibility in the age of generative AI, „The Business Lawyer” 2023/2024, t. 79, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4746102. Google Scholar
Horrigan D., Generative AI: a legal ethics roadmap and reference guide, https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2024/08/11/generative-ai-a-legal-ethics-roadmap-and-reference-guide/?slreturn=20260426091702. Google Scholar
Kaczmarczyk M., Quo vadis, sztuczna inteligencjo? Rozważania nad problematyką etyczną i prawną AI, „Studia Prawnoustrojowe” 2025, nr 68. Google Scholar
Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych, Rekomendacje dotyczące korzystania przez radców prawnych z narzędzi opartych na sztucznej inteligencji, KIRP, Warszawa 2025. Google Scholar
Lawson J., Artificial intelligence, ABA formal opinion 512 and access to justice, https://www.llrx.com/2024/12/artificial-intelligence-aba-formal-opinion-512-and-access-to-justice/?. Google Scholar
Magesh V., Surani F., Dahl M., Suzgun M., Manning C.D., Ho D.E., Hallucination-free? Assessing the reliability of leading AI legal research tools, „Journal of Empirical Legal Studies” 2025, nr 22(2). Google Scholar
Mielniczek P., Etyka pracy prawnika z wykorzystaniem sztucznej inteligencji, „Prawo Nowych Technologii” 2025, nr 1. Google Scholar
Niemczuk A., Zienkiewicz A., Artificial intelligence in the work of lawyers and in the judicial system – from new technologies to regulations, „Studia Prawnoustrojowe” 2025, nr 68. Google Scholar
Pierce N.A., Goutos S.L., Why lawyers must responsibly embrace generative AI, SSRN, 2023, wersja zaktualizowana 2024, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4477704. Google Scholar
Piesiewicz P.F., Zasady korzystania z generatywnej sztucznej inteligencji w międzynarodowych i zagranicznych dokumentach dotyczących wykonywania zawodu adwokata. Wnioski dla Adwokatury Polskiej, „Palestra” 2026, nr 5. Google Scholar
Piesiewicz P.F., Wojdyło K., Wpływ narzędzi sztucznej inteligencji na samodzielność osądu adwokata. Wyzwania etyczne i poznawcze związane z automatyzacją czynności zawodowych, „Palestra” 2026, nr 4. Google Scholar
Strong S.I., Artificial intelligence in civil justice systems: an empirical and interdisciplinary analysis and proposal for moving forward, Emory Legal Studies Research Paper, „Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution” 2026, vol. 41, https://ssrn.com/abstract=5239069. Google Scholar
Terzidou K., Generative AI systems in legal practice offering quality legal services while upholding legal ethics, „International Journal of Law in Context” 2025, t. 21. Google Scholar
The European Bars Federation, New Technologies Commision, European lawyers in the era of ChatGPT. Guidelines 2.0, wrzesień 2024. Google Scholar
Walters E., The model rules of autonomous conduct: ethical responsibilities of lawyers and artificial intelligence, „Georgia State University Law Review” 2019, nr 35(4), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3375045. Google Scholar
Webb J., Generative artificial intelligence in legal practice: epistemic expertise, unethical AI, and the role of virtue, „Minds and Machines” 2026, t. 36, art. nr 19, DOI: 10.1007/s11023-026-09771-2. Google Scholar
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
