The New York State Bar Association adopted detailed guidelines on 31 October explaining how existing professional duties apply to lawyers using artificial intelligence.
The guidelines state that hourly practitioners may charge for time actually spent formulating inputs and reviewing, verifying and revising AI outputs. They may not charge for the time that would hypothetically have been required without AI, or bill the value of the resulting work as though they had spent that time. General AI training and ordinary tool costs are treated as professional development and overhead, although matter-specific adaptation and properly disclosed matter expenses may be recoverable.
For non-hourly work, the position is different: AI efficiency does not automatically require a lower fixed or contingent fee, but the fee must remain reasonable under the ordinary professional rules.
The 96-page report also requires independent verification of material outputs and meaningful supervision of vendors and agentic systems. It is professional guidance, not a new disciplinary code or an amendment to New York’s conduct rules.
The development matters because it separates the cost of producing a first draft from the professional work required to make it reliable. Although not binding in Australia, the framework offers a useful model: AI may compress production time, while verification, correction and accountable adoption remain legitimate—and potentially more visible—components of legal value.
Sources: NYSBA guidelines; NYSBA announcement.
Leave a Reply