Key Takeaway: As AI governance unfolds across jurisdictions, teams that lack alignment on responsible AI use invite scrutiny and risk falling behind. The Ohio ethics guide on AI for lawyers and judicial officers reflects a wider trend emerging across the US. AI expectations are no longer isolated; they are standard. Early alignment builds trust and enables legal teams to stay competitive.

Courts, clients, and counsel no longer treat AI as a future issue. It now shapes daily legal work. Against that backdrop, the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct issued new guidance on the use of AI that reflects where the legal industry stands today: cautious, pragmatic, and focused on core ethical duties. According to JD Supra, these guidelines assert “AI can now be ‘correctly defined as a ‘relevant technology’ to the practice of law’ and as such lawyers are duty bound to keep abreast of the risks and benefits of its use.”

This guidance does not create new rules. Rather, it clarifies how existing obligations apply when lawyers use AI tools. This offers a clear signal: the path to responsible AI adoption already exists inside the rules that lawyers follow every day.

A Practical Voice in a Patchwork Landscape

States continue to take different approaches to AI in legal practice. Some impose enforceable requirements or disclosure mandates. Others rely on advisory opinions. Ohio falls squarely in the middle.

That position matters. Rather than pushing novel restrictions, the guidance aligns with broader national themes and frameworks. It reinforces what many jurisdictions already emphasize:

• Competence extends to understanding technology.
• Confidentiality remains non-negotiable.
• Supervision applies to both people and tools.
• Billing must reflect actual value delivered.

This consistency reduces uncertainty. Firms operating across jurisdictions can treat the Ohio framework as a reliable reference point rather than an outlier.
Map your current AI practices to existing ethical duties, not new rules. Start with competence, confidentiality, supervision, and billing. If your workflows hold up in those areas, you are aligned with the direction most jurisdictions are taking.

Competence Now Includes AI Awareness

The guidance makes one point clear: lawyers do not need to become technologists, although they do need to understand the tools they use. That includes knowing what AI systems do, and what they do not. Recognize risks such as hallucinations or incomplete outputs and verify results before relying on them. In this context, competence means informed use, not blind trust.

To begin, teams must establish a simple validation protocol for AI work. Require human review before external use, document when AI is used in drafting or research and maintain a checklist to verify outputs. These steps strengthen defensibility and reduce risk without slowing productivity.

Confidentiality Extends to Every Interaction

AI tools often rely on data inputs. That creates immediate confidentiality concerns.

Lawyers must protect client information at all times, regardless of the technology in use. This includes understanding how tools store, process, and retain data. Client data should never flow into systems that expose or reuse it in ways that violate professional obligations.

To protect client information confidently, create clear usage boundaries. Define which tools are approved for client work and prohibit entry of sensitive data into public or unsecured platforms. Work with suppliers that provide explicit data handling assurances and document these decisions. Clients expect visibility into how their data is protected when AI is involved.

Supervision Now Includes Technology

Supervision has always applied to junior lawyers and third-party providers. AI tools fall within that same framework. Lawyers remain responsible for the work product produced with AI assistance, and delegating tasks to a system does not transfer accountability.

It helps to treat AI outputs like work from a junior team member. Review results for accuracy and completeness, confirm the reasoning behind each conclusion, and validate citations and sources.

This mindset keeps responsibility where it belongs while maintaining efficiency gains.

What Fair Billing Looks Like in an AI Workflow

Ohio’s guidance reinforces a simple principle: billing must remain fair and reasonable, and time saved through AI cannot inflate costs to the client. While this shift presents a challenge, teams also gain an opportunity to succeed with AI. Firms must rethink how they price and communicate value.

Reevaluate your billing approach by aligning fees with outcomes, not time spent. Continue to be transparent about efficiency gains and use AI to reduce cost structures, not mask them.
Clients increasingly expect this shift. Meeting that expectation builds trust and strengthens relationships.

AI Is Now Embedded in Client Expectations

One of the most important developments goes beyond formal guidance. Clients now ask direct questions about AI use.

They want to know whether their counsel uses AI, how it is governed, and what safeguards are in place to protect their data.

This demand has already reshaped outside counsel guidelines (OCGs). What began as simple disclosure language now includes detailed governance requirements, approved tool lists, and data retention expectations.
Prepare for client scrutiny by developing a clear AI usage policy. Align it with client expectations and industry norms and be ready to explain how your approach improves efficiency and controls risk.

Firms that answer these questions confidently gain a competitive edge.

Governance Must Move Beyond Quick Fixes

AI governance is no longer a one-line policy update. It requires integration across the business.

Retention policies, discovery readiness, supplier management, and internal training all come into play. Even AI search histories may become discoverable in certain contexts, making documentation and retention decisions critical.

Teams must build a structured governance model:

1. Define retention rules for AI interactions.
2. Align policies with discovery obligations. 
3. Regularly review and update guidance as tools evolve.

Quick fixes will not hold up under scrutiny. Comprehensive governance will.

The Future of Compliant AI Use in Legal Workflows

The Ohio guidance does not break new ground; that is precisely its value.

It confirms that responsible AI use in legal practice rests on familiar principles. Competence, confidentiality, supervision, and fair billing remain the foundation. The difference lies in how those principles apply when AI is involved.

Legal teams are empowered to use AI to improve efficiency and reduce cost. To do so, maintain rigorous oversight and ethical discipline and align practices with client expectations and evolving standards.

This approach strengthens defensibility, builds client trust, and creates a more consistent, scalable model for adopting AI with confidence.

Learn more about Epiq Legal Department Advisory.

Reprinted with permission from the July 30, 2026 edition of Law.com Corporate Counsel © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.


Tanya Crosse, Director, Epiq Advisory
Tanya Crosse leads a team of experts who advise legal departments on managing their outside counsel spend. She has over 20 years of experience in the legal industry as a managing and in-house lawyer, insurance industry expert, and legal spend analyst.


Christina Harrison, Manager, Epiq Advisory
Christina leads clients in optimizing their legal operations by delivering data-driven insights, aligning outside counsel strategies, and implementing practical technology solutions tailored to complex business needs.  

Christina brings over seven years of experience in legal technology to their role at Epiq, with expertise spanning document review, contracts, legal spend management, and research.