Responsible AI Use in Canadian Legal Practice: New Technology, Enduring Professional Duties

Artificial intelligence is no longer an emerging technology in the legal profession. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into legal practice, the conversation is shifting from whether lawyers should use AI to how they can use it responsibly.

Responsible AI use is not simply about understanding new technology, but instead continuing to meet longstanding professional obligations while leveraging tools that can improve efficiency and client service. These tools serve as an extension of a lawyer’s professional capabilities, not as a means of circumventing legal, ethical or regulatory requirements. Their use must also preserve the trust at the core of the lawyer-client relationship and uphold public confidence in the legal profession.

AI and Professional Responsibilities

Across Canada, law societies have consistently emphasized that the introduction of AI does not diminish a lawyer's existing ethical duties.

Lawyers remain responsible for:

• Providing Competent Legal Advice: The duty of competence extends beyond detecting and correcting inaccurate AI-generated results. Lawyers must continue to apply their own legal reasoning and analysis, including considering of issues, options and consequences that an AI tool may overlook or omit. Competence also requires an understanding of AI’s capabilities and limitations, including whether a particular tool is appropriate for the task. Where generative AI is used to deliver legal services, lawyers should have sufficient knowledge of the technology to critically assess its outputs and understand the risks associated with its use. The lawyer remains accountable for the final work product.

• Protecting Client Confidentiality: Not every AI tool will be appropriate for legal work, particularly where confidential or privileged client information is involved. Before using a tool, understand how it stores, uses and shares information, including whether inputs may be used for training. Ensure appropriate security and privacy safeguards are in place and avoid entering sensitive client information unless confidentiality and privilege can be adequately protected.
• Exercising Independent Professional Judgment: Lawyers have a duty to exercise independent professional judgment and should not over rely on generative AI. AI-generated research and analysis should support, rather than replace, a lawyer’s own critical thinking.
• Honesty and Candour in Client Communication: Consider whether clients need to be informed about the use of AI in providing legal services, particularly where its use affects how client information is handled or the services being provided. Appropriate transparency helps clients make informed decisions and supports trust in the lawyer client relationship.
• Supervising Work Product: Generative AI should be treated like non-lawyer assistance. Lawyers remain responsible for reviewing and verifying AI-generated work to ensure it is accurate, appropriate and consistent with their professional obligations.
• Ensuring Reasonable Fees: Lawyers have a professional duty to ensure that fees and disbursements are fair, reasonable and transparent. When generative AI makes work more efficient, lawyers should ensure those efficiencies are appropriately reflected in hourly billing and charge only for the time actually spent using, reviewing and refining AI-generated work.
• Guarding Against Bias: Generative AI may reflect or amplify biases in its training data or design, affecting impartiality. Critically assess AI-generated outputs for potential bias, particularly where those outputs may influence advice, analysis or decisions affecting clients.
• Meeting the Requirements of Courts or Other Decision-Makers: Different courts and tribunals have varied expectations in relation to disclosing the use of AI in preparation of submissions. Understand and comply with applicable practice directions, notices and procedural requirements in the relevant jurisdiction.

The Canadian Regulatory Landscape Is Still Evolving

Canada does not currently have comprehensive federal AI legislation in force that regulates artificial intelligence across all sectors. That does not mean AI operates in a legal vacuum.

Existing legal frameworks continue to apply, including:

• privacy legislation, including PIPEDA and applicable provincial privacy laws;
• human rights legislation;
• consumer protection laws;
• contractual obligations;
• intellectual property laws, and
• professional conduct rules governing lawyers.

Provincial developments are also shaping AI governance. Ontario’s Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 establishes a framework for regulating the use of AI systems by prescribed public-sector entities, and Québec’s privacy legislation imposes transparency and review requirements where organizations or public bodies use personal information to make decisions based exclusively on automated processing.

In addition, governments and regulators continue to publish guidance on responsible AI governance, risk management, transparency, and accountability. The practical takeaway is clear: responsible AI governance matters today, even as the regulatory framework continues to develop.

Looking Ahead

AI will continue to evolve rapidly, as will the legal frameworks that govern its use. Lawyers who develop strong AI governance practices today will be better positioned to adapt to future regulatory developments while maintaining client trust.

Responsible AI is not about avoiding innovation. Generative AI has the potential to make legal services more efficient, accessible and responsive to client needs, but its value ultimately depends on how it is used. Technology can support legal analysis and decision making, but it cannot replace the professional judgment, expertise and accountability of a lawyer. In an increasingly competitive legal market, responsible AI adoption is becoming not only a matter of compliance but also a meaningful competitive advantage. Lawyers who balance these capabilities with their ethical and professional obligations will be best positioned to realize the benefits of AI for their practices, their clients and the broader justice system.